U NIVER5  ITY 
Of  ILLINOIS 

329.M 

P6\p 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

University  of  Illinois  Library 


p 


- 


Swrey ' 


POPULIST  HAND- 


FOR  KANSAS. 


A COMPILATION  FROM  OFFICIAL  SOURCES 
OF  SOME  FACTS  FOR  USE  IN  SUC- 
CEEDING POLITICAL 
CAMPAIGNS. 


WITH"  NOTES. 


VINCENT  BROS.  PUBLISHING  COMPANY, 

PUBLISHERS, 

INDIANAPOLIS,  IND. 

1891. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  1891, 

By  C.  VINCENT, 

In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington,  D.  C. 

* 


i 


Press  of  The  Hamilton  Printing  Co., 
Topeka,  Kansas. 


/ T-e&~ 


Preface. 


The  immediate  cause  which  led  to  the  political  upheaval  in  Kansas  in  1890  appeared  to  be 
the  successful  rebellion  of  independent  Republicans,  assisted  by  the  Union  Labor  party  and 
Democrats,  in  Cowley  county  in  1889,  against  the  intolerable  dictation  of  W.  P.  Hackney,  E.  P. 
Greer,  et  al.t  the  county  “political  bosses.”  The  real  cause,  however,  lies  deeper  than  this  sur- 
face indication  would  suggest. 

The  various  reform  or  third  parties  that  have  agitated  political  affairs  during  the  period 
since  1874  have  all  been  parties  having  “ ideas  ” to  present,  but  it  seems  that  they  all  failed  in 
so  presenting  their  principles  as  to  secure  general  acceptance.  During  these  years  a constant 
agitation  has  been  kept  up  that  has  resulted  in  a better  education  concerning  political  methods 
and  governmental  systems  than  even  the  friends  of  reform  were  aware  of. 

In  the  campaign  of  1888,  the  Union  Labor  party  was  more  than  usually  aggressive,  and 
Chapter  II  of  this  volume  will  show  to  what  desperate  straits  the  Republican  managers  were 
reduced  in  order  to  retain  control  of  the  State  government. 

The  whole  State  and  nation  were  so  shocked  by  the  “ Coffey ville  Dynamite  Outrage”  as  to 
awaken.in  the  most  conservative  of  men  a feeling  of  anxiety  for  the  future,  and  a dread  of 
what  unchecked  political  greed  and  despotism  might  produce. 

Thus  rudely  shaken  with  vague  fears,  the  public  mind  was  in  excellent  condition  to  seek 
political  information.  Just  prior  to  this  time  there  came  to  Cowley  county  an  organizer  of  the 
Farmers’  Alliance.  He  did  not  meet  with  flattering  success  until  after  the  close  of  the  exciting 
, campaign  of  1888.  In  the  following  winter  months,  the  protest  against  existing  conditions,  po- 
litical and  social,  took  shape  in  the  rapid  organization  of  the  Farmers’  Alliance,  purely  as  a 
means  of  education. 

A thoroughly- informed  people  cannot  be  enslaved,  nor  kept  in  slavery  long  after  they  become 
educated  concerning  the  means  used  to  bind  them. 

^ The  education  furnished  in  Alliance  halls  stimulated  the  latent  energies  of  the  rural  classes, 
general  reading  became  more  universal,  all  available  sources  of  information  were  utilized,  and 
gradually  the  masses  realized  that  cunning  greed  had  kept  country  and  city  arrayed  against 
' > each  other,  though  many  of  their  interests  are  common.  This  division  rendered  them  an  easy 

"V  prey  to  the  political  despot  and  party  “boss.”  Once  realizing  the  real  condition,  they  laid 

aside  old  political  affiliations,  as  one  would  lay  aside  an  old  coat,  (and  with  as  few  regrets,) 
donned  the  new  role  of  managing  their  own  political  affairs,  and  they  propose  to  continue 
IN  THE  BUSINESS. 

This  volume  is  intended  to  present  some  assistance  to  this  desirable  end,  and  though  entirely 
different  from  any  book  ever  before  published,  the  changed  determination  of  the  people  has 
created  the  demand  it  is  intended  to  fill  — it  being  a condensed  compendium,  not  so  much  of 
political  statistical  information  as  it  is  of  the  means  of  defensive  and  offensive  political  war- 
fare. This  is  rendered  necessary  on  account  of  the  unscrupulous  methods  used  by  the  Repub- 
lican campaign  managers,  as  instanced  in  the  “ Hutchinson  forged  resolutions,”  the  so-called 
“Cloud  county  resolutions,”  the  persistent  misrepresentation  and  vilification  of  leading  pa- 
triots by  the*entire  Republican  press,  not  to  mention  the  villainous  conspiracy  of  1888,  the 
farcical  impeachment  trial  of  Judge  Botkin,  and  its  culmination  in  the  assassination  of  Col.  S. 
N.  Wood. 

If  it  shall  assist  “The  People”  in  the  defense  of  their  homes,  the  work  intended  for  this 
volume  will*  be  accomplished. 

VINCENT  BROS. 


\ I I 9858 


Table  of  Contents. 


I.  — Pakty  Platfobms 

Partial  list  of  bills  passed  by  the  People’s  House,  and  killed  in  the  Senate.  — Protest 
of  M.  W.  Cobun.  — People’s  Manifesto.  — Mr.  Rogers’s  reply  to  Senator  Buchan. — 
House  bill  No.  743,  with  comparative  tables,  as  follows : 

Kansas  distance  schedule  of  reasonable  maximum  rates. 

Table  I.  — Mileage,  taken  from  Railroad  Commissioners’  Report  for  Kansas,  1890. 
Table  I-A.  — Mileage,  taken  from  Railroad  Commissioners’  Report  for  Iowa,  1889. 
Table  II.  — Freight  earnings  — Kansas  Railroad  Commissioners’  Rep.,  June  30, 1890. 
Table  II-A.  — Freight  earnings  — Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners’  Rep.,  June  30,1889. 
Table  III.  — Freight  earnings  per  ton  mile  and  per  train  mile. 

Table  III-A.  — Same  for  Iowa,  Report  of  June  30, 1889. 

Table  IV.  — Shows  number  of  employes,  wages  paid,  cost  for  maintenance,  etc. 

Table  IV-A.  — Same  for  Iowa,  Report  of  June  30, 1889. 

Table  Y.  — Gross  earnings  — Kansas  Report,  June  30, 1890. 

Table  Y-A.  — Gross  earnings  — Iowa  Report,  June  30, 1889. 

Table  YI.  — Operating  expenses  — Kansas  Report,  June  30, 1890. 

Table  YI-A.  — Operating  expenses  — Iowa  Report,  June  30,1889. 

Table  VII.  — Railroad  Commissioners’  reasonable  tariff  schedule  and  distances. 
Table  VIII.  — Existing  railroad  tariff  rates  and  distances. 

Table  IX.  — Reasonable  maximum  freight  rates  — House  bill  No.  743. 

Summary  of  Tables  VII,  VIII,  and  IX.  — Condensed  summary,  by  counties.  — Com- 
parison of  rates  paid  in  Iowa,  Illinois,  and  Kansas.  — State  printing. 

II.  — The  Dynamite  Conspieacy.  . 

Introduction.  — Senator  Kimball’s  forgery.  — His  larceny  of  a Senatorial  seat. — The 
four  theories.  — Report  of  whole  committee.  — Report  of  Republican  Members. — 
Diagram  of  Henrie’s  home.  — Report  of  Populist  members.  — Lee  Jones’s  evidence.  — 
Greer’s  cross-examination.  — Democratic  report.  — Carroll  and  Mohler  careless  and 
indifferent.  — Judge  H.  G.  Webb’s  review.  — Appendix  — Henrie’s  connection  with 
the  Labor  Bureau;  they  “ had  to”  take  him,  and  they  “ have  to”  keep  him. 

III.  — The  Botkin  Investigation  and  Impeachment  Tbial 

Organization  of  the  court. — Political  statistics.  — Relative  strength  of  parties,  by  sen- 
atorial districts.  — Thirty-second  Judicial  District. — Why  organized. — Impeachment 
not  a Populist  movement. — Originated  and  pushed  by  Republicans. — Five  petitions, 
with  names  of  petitioners.— Resolution  providing  for  investigation.— Officious  in- 
terference by  members  of  the  Senate. — Report  of  committee. — Botkin  tries  to  bank- 
rupt the  State  for  fees  to  his  witnesses. — A lawyer  fee  to  be  presented. — Quorum. — 
Demurrer  in  which  Botkin  admits  the  truth  of  all  the  charges  against  him.— Botkin’s 
own  witnesses  testify  to  his  drunkenness. — Twenty-three  Senators  eat  their  own 
words  “ for  the  good  of  the  party.” — Horrible  drunkenness  and  shocking  blasphemy. 
— Illegal  arrest  of  American  citizens.— Botkin  perjures  himself  to  get  men  in  his 
power.—  Robbery  of  Springfield. — A receiver  appointed  to  bring  the  money  nearer 
the  court. — Hackney  a partner  in  the  theft. — Final  votes. — Short  review  of  coun- 
sels’ argument. — Douglass’s  arraignment  of  Botkin. — Hackney’s  abuse. 

IV.  — Political  Methods 

Hutchinson  forged  resolutions. — Affidavits.  — Letters.  — Soldiers’  statement.  — Cloud 
county  resolutions. — Attempt  to  intimidate  Chairman  Campbell.  — Booth’s  record. — . 
Age-of-consent  bill,  and  vote. 

V.  — Moktgaged  Indebtedness 

Of  Miami,  Lyon,  Marshall,  Sedgwick,  Harper,  Marion  and  Pratt  counties.  — Interest 
drain.  — The  Sub-Treasury  system : The  plan ; its  constitutionality.  — Extracts  from 
“ Report  of  United  States  Pacific  Railway  Commission  : ” Astounding  thievery ; per- 
jured officials ; watered  stock;  Huntington  letters.  — Populist  newspapers  ^n  Kan- 
sas. — State  official  directory. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1891. 

In  the  campaign  of  1890  there  were  five  political  parties  in  the  field,  and 
four  tickets  were  voted  upon  at  the  fall  election,  viz.:  (1)  Republican,  (2)  Peo- 
ple’s, (3)  Democratic-Republican-Resubmission  (fusion),  and  the  (4)  Prohibi- 
tion tickets.  Inasmuch  as  the  real  contest  was  between  the  Republican  and 
People’s  parties,  we  will  omit  much  that  might  be  interesting  matter  touching 
the  latter  two  tickets  and  their  supporters,  and  confine  ourselves  to  the  actors 
in  the  real  contest.  This  will  necessarily  be  somewhat  abridged,  but  it  is 
hoped  that  the  important  points  will  be  presented  with  clearness  and  pre- 
cision. Accordingly  we  here  print,  in  condensed  form,  the  platforms  presented 
by  the  parties  in  question. 

The  People’s  Party,  last  fall,  in  their  platform,  said: 

“First.  We  demand  the  abolition  of  national  banks,  and  the  substitution  of  legal-tender 
treasury  notes,  in  lieu  of  national-bank  notes,  issued  in  sufficient  volume  to  do  the  business  of 
the  country  on  a cash  system,  regulating  the  amount  needed  on  a per  capita  basis,  as  the  busi- 
ness of  the  country  expands ; and  that  all  money  issued  by  the  Government  shall  be  a legal 
tender  in  payment  of  all  debts,  both  public  and  private. 

“ Second . We  demand  the  free  and  unlimited  coinage  of  silver. 

“Third.  We  demand  that  Congress  shall  pass  such  laws  as  shall  effectually  prevent  the  deal- 
ing in  futures,  in  all  agricultural  and  mechanical  productions. 

“ Fourth . We  demand  the  passage  of  laws  prohibiting  alien  ownership  of  land. 

“Fifth.  We  demand  that  taxation,  national  or  State,  shall  not  be  used  to  build  up  one  interest 
or  class  at  the  expense  of  another.  We  demand  that  all  revenues,  national,  State,  and  county, 
shall  be  limited  to  the  necessary  expenses  of  the  government,  economically  and  honestly  ad- 
ministered. J 

“Sixth.  We  demand  that  the  means  of  communication  and  transportation  shall  be  owned  by 
and  operated  in  the  interests  of  the  people,  as  in  the  United  States  postal  system. 

“ Seventh . We  demand  such  legislation  as  shall  effectually  prevent  the  extortion  of  usurious 
interest  by  any  form  or  evasion  of  statutory  provisions. 

“ Eighth . We  demand  such  legislation  as  will  provide  for  a reasonable  stay  of  execution,  in 
all  cases,  of  foreclosures  of  mortgages  on  real  estate,  and  a reasonable  extension  of  time  before 
the  confirmation  of  sheriffs’  sales. 

“Ninth.  We  demand  such  legislation  as  will  effectually  prevent  the  organization  of  trusts  and 
combines  for  the  purpose  of  speculation  in  any  of  the  products  of  labor  or  the  necessities  of  life, 
or  the  transportation  of  the  same. 

“Tenth.  We  demand  the  adjustment  of  salaries  of  public  officials  to  correspond  with  existing 
financial  conditions,  the  wages  paid  to  other  forms  of  labor,  and  the  prevailing  prices  of  the 
products  of  labor. 


6 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


“ Eleventh.  We  demand  the  adoption  of  the  Australian  system  of  voting. 

11  Twelfth.  Labor  is  the  beginning  of  progress,  the  formation  of  the  world,  and  the  laborer  is 
entitled  to  a good  living  and  a fair  share  of  the  profits  which  result  from  his  labor.  The  use  of 
labor-saving  machinery  should  shorten  the  hours  of  toil,  and  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the  em- 
ployed equally  with  the  employer.” 

The  Republican  platform  said,  concerning  living  issues: 

“ We  favor  such  other  legislation  as  may  be  necessary  to  insure  an  increase  of  the  volume 
of  currency,  adequate  to  the  growing  demand  of  our  trade,  the  volume  of  such  currency  to  be 
regulated  by  the  necessities  of  business.  We  are  in  favor  of  uniformity  in  text-books  in  all 
the  schools  of  the  State,  and  demand  such  legislation  as  shall  procure,  by  contract  or  otherwise, 
the  best  standard  books  at  the  least  possible  cost.  We  are  in  favor  of  electing  railroad  com- 
missioners by  a vote  of  the  people,  and  we  demand  of  the  next  Legislature  that  they  confer 
upon  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  ample  power  to  regulate  freight  and  passenger 
rates.  We  are  opposed  to  the  system  of  free  passes  on  railroads  now  in  vogue  in  this  State,  by 
reason  of  which  every  railroad  company  is  expected,  as  a matter  of  courtesy,  to  compliment  all 
State  officers,  members  of  the  Legislature,  judges  and  other  public  officers  with  free  transporta- 
tion over  their  respective  lines,  and  we  favor  the  suppression  of  this  practice  by  proper  legis- 
lation. We  are  in  favor  of  legislation  prohibiting  the  employment  of  children  under  the  age 
of  fourteen  years  in  mines,  factories,  work-shops,  or  mercantile  establishments. 

“ The  next  Legislature  should  so  amend  the  laws  relating  to  foreclosure  and  sale  of  real 
estate,  under  mortgage  contract,  as  shall  secure  to  the  mortgagor  the  privilege  of  redeeming  such 
real  estate  at  any  time  within  twelve  months  from  date  of  such  foreclosure  sale,  by  the  pay- 
ment of  the  judgment  and  of  legal  interest  from  date  of  sale  to  date  of  redemption.” 

Having  above  the  platforms  upon  which  both  parties  appeared  before  the 
people,  we  will  now  call  attention  to  the  following  statement  of  bills  passed 
by  the  People’s  Representatives  in  good  faith,  endeavoring  to  promote  the 
welfare  of  Kansas.  The  defeat  of  these  measures  by  the  Republican  Senate 
proves  the  insincerity  and  hypocrisy  of  that  party  when  it  presented  its  reso- 
lutions in  convention.  It  proves  that  the  platform  of  the  Republican  party 
is  made  for  the  same  purpose  as  the  platform  of  a passenger  car  — to  go  in 
on,  and  when  once  inside,  a notice  stares  you  in  the  face,  “No  one  allowed  to 
stand  on  the  platform.” 

The  following  bills  are  selected  as  passed  in  good  faith  by  the  Populists: 
[Not  all  these  bills  were  introduced  by  Populists,  and  these  are  only  a few, 
but  enough  to  prove  the  sincerity  of  the  People’s  Party.] 

By  Mr.  Douglass:  House  bill  No.  1,  An  act  prescribing  penalty  for  the  ac- 
ceptance of  bribes.  Passed  March  6;  see  House  Jour.  p.  942-3.  Reported  to 
the  Senate  same  afternoon;  see  Senate  Jour.  p.  705;  never  acted  upon. 

Also,  House  bill  No.  2,  An  act  to  prohibit  the  corrupt  use  of  money,  and 
corrupt  practices  at  elections.  Passed  February  17;  House  Jour.  p.  480; 
Heber  (Rep.)  voting  no.  Reported  to  Senate  same  day;  Senate  Jour,  p 357; 
favorably  reported  by  Committee  on  Elections,  p.  457,  but  never  called  up 
for  action. 

By  Brown  of  Harvey:  House  bill  No.  17,  An  act  prohibiting  railroad  com- 


LEGISLATURE  OF  1891. 


7 


panies  from  employing  or  using  private  armed  detective  force  during  railroad 
strikes  or  other  disputes  arising  .between  such  railroad  companies  and  their 
employes,  and  providing  a penalty  for  the  violation  thereof.  Passed  February 
8;  House  Jour.  p.  268;  Pierson  of  Allen  and  Seaton  (Reps.)  voting  no.  Mes- 
saged to  Senate  following  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  223;  favorably  reported  by 
Committee  on  Judiciary,  p.  486,  but  never  called  up. 

By  Mr.  Showalter:  House  bill  No.  21,  An  act  relating  to  the  redemption  of 
lands  sold  for  taxes,  and  to  amend  the  tax  laws  of  1876,  and  chapter  43  of  the 
Laws  of  1879.  Passed  February  25;  House  Jour.  p.  657.  Messaged  to  Senate 
same  day;  Senate  Jour,  p.485;  Senator  Harkness,  from  Committee  on  Assess- 
ment and  Taxation,  reported  in  favor  of  indefinite  postponement;  p.  555. 

By  Mr.  Howard:  House  bill  No.  61,  An  act  to  protect  counties,  cities  and 
townships  against  the  illegal  or  fraudulent  acts  of  their  officers.  Passed  Feb- 
ruary 13;  House  J our.  p.  439.  Messaged  to  Senate  following  day ; Senate  J our. 
p.  334;  read  twice,  and  allowed  to  die. 

Also,  House  bill  No.  62,  An  act  relating  to  chattel  mortgages  and  liens  on 
personal  property,  and  amendatory  of  chapter  68  of  the  General  Statutes. 
Passed  February  3;  House  Jour.  p.  268.  Messaged  to  the  Senate  following 
day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  223;  killed  by  committee;  Senate  Jour.  p.  621. 

By  Mr.  Doolittle;  House  bill  No.  69,  An  act  amendatory  to  the  code  of  civil 
procedure,  in  relation  to  the  sale  of  real  estate.  Passed  February  12;  House 
Jour.  p.  409.  Messaged  to  Senate  Feb.  14;  Senate  Jour.  p.  334;  read  twice,  and 
allowed  to  die. 

By  Mr.  Yandeventer:  House  bill  No.  103,  An  act  to  prohibit  subscription  of 
stock  or  voting  of  bonds  for  the  construction  of  railroads.  Passed  March  5; 
House  Jour.  p.  915.  Messaged  to  Senate  March  6;  Senate  Jour.  p.  696;  never 
called  up. 

How  the  Miners  were  Snubbed.  By  Mr.  Reed:  House  bill  No.  120,  An 
act  to  regulate  the  weight  of  coal  at  the  mines.  Passed  February  3;  House 
Jour.  p.  266.  Messaged  to  Senate  following  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  223. 

By  reference  to  House  Journal,  page  982,  it  will  appear  that  House  bill  No. 
120  passed  the  Senate  and  was  reported  back  to  the  House,  but  a careful  ex- 
amination of  the  Senate  Journal  does  not  reveal  any  action  by  that  body.  If 
the  Senate  passed  the  bill,  the  records  of  that  body  fail  to  show  it,  and  if  it 
did  not  pass,  how  does  Senate  Clerk  Stacey  account  for  its  being  included  in 
the  list  of  bills  messaged  by  him  to  the  House  as  being  passed? 

By  Mr.  Maddox:  House  bill  No.  125,  An  act  to  amend  chapter  131,  Session 
Laws  of  1885,  of  an  act  entitled,  “An  act  providing  for  the  organization  and 
control  of  mutual  life  insurance  associations  in  this  State,”  approved  March 
7,  1885,  and  to  repeal  said  sections.  Passed  February  26;  House  Jour.  p.  707 ; 


8 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


read  twice,  and  recommended  for  passage;  Senate  Jour.  p.  573;  but  allowed 
to  die.  . 

Austkalian  Ballot  System  Killed.  By  Mr.  G.  E.  Smith:  House  bill  No. 
126,  An  act  to  provide  for  printing  and  distributing  ballots  at  public  expense, 
and  to  regulate  voting  at  State  and  city  elections. ^ Passed,  unanimously,  Feb- 
ruary 19;  House  Jour.  p.  544.  Messaged  to  Senate  February  23;  Senate  Jour, 
p.  430;  read  twice,  and  referred  to  Committee  on  Elections,  which  reported  it 
favorably,  but  it  was  allowed  to  die,  not  being  called  up  for  action;  Senate 
Jour.  p.  633. 

By  Mr.  Elder:  House  bill  No.  132,  An  act  to  secure  uniformity  of  listing 
taxation  of  bonds,  mortgages,  notes,  and  other  securities  for  indebtedness. 
Passed  February  9;  House  Jour.  p.  353;  76  for  and  19  against  the  bill.  Sen- 
ate Committee  on  Judiciary  recommended  indefinite  postponement,  because 
of  certain  alleged  imperfections,  yet  made  no  effort  to  correct  those  imper- 
fections, or  pass  any  bill  to  meet  the  demands. of  the  people  on  this  subject; 
Senate  Jour.  p.  508. 

Also,  House  bill  No.  133,  An  act  to  amend  section  80  of  chapter  93  of  the 
Session  Laws  of  1871,  being  an  act  entitled  “An  act  to  establish  an  insurance 
department  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  to  regulate  the  companies  doing 
business  therein.”  Passed  February  23;  House  Jour.  p.  604.  Messaged  to 
Senate  the  following  day;  Senate  Jour,  p.456;  read  twice,  and  referred  to 
Committee  on  Insurance,  where  it  died  in  a pigeon-hole;  Senate  Jour.  p.  498. 

Also,  House  bill  No.  134,  An  act  relating  to  the  rate  of  interest  to  be 
charged  for  the  use  of  money,  prohibiting  usury,  and  providing  penalties  for 
the  violation  thereof,  and  for  repealing  chapter  164  of  the  Laws  of  1889,  ap- 
proved March  1,  1889.  Passed  February  18;  House  Jour,  p.522.  Messaged 
to  Senate  the  following  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  401;  read  twice,  and  referred  to 
Committee  on  Judicary,  and  treated  in  same  manner  as  House  bill  132  above; 
Senate  Jour.  p.  531. 

Also,  House  bill  No.  139,  An  act  to  provide  for  an  inspector  of  hogs  and 
cattle  offered  for  sale  in  the  stock  yards  located  within  the  county  of  Wyan- 
dotte, defining  his  duties  and  term  of  office,  and  removing  all  restriction  in 
the  trade  of  dead  hogs  and  cattle  therein.  Passed  March  4;  House  Jour. 
p.873.  Messaged  to  the  Senate  the  following  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  652;  re- 
ferred to  Committee  on  Agriculture  (Roe,  chairman),  which  reported  a rec- 
ommendation to  refer  to  committee  of  the  whole;  Senate  Jour.  p.  802;  here 
it  died. 

By  Mr.  Smith  of  Neosho:  House  bill  No.  145,  An  act  limiting  the  powers 
of  counties,  townships  and  cities  to  borrow  money  to  create  indebtedness. 
Passed  March  3,  85  to  0;  House  Jour.  p. 816.  Messaged  to  Senate  same  day; 


LEGISLATURE  OF  1891. 


9 


Senate  Jour.  p.  623;  referred  to  Committee  on  Assessment  and  Taxation 
(Harkness,  chairman),  which  reported  a recommendation  to  refer  to  com- 
mittee of  the  whole;  Senate  Jour,  p.805;  here  it  died. 

By  Mr.  Maddox:  House  bill  No.  212,  An  act  to  prohibit  the  waiver  of  the 
appraisement  and  stay  laws,  and  laws  of  procedure,  in  suits  for  the  collection 
of  debts,  and  to  repeal  chapter  66  of  the  Session  Laws  of  1872.  Passed  Feb- 
ruary 27,  74  to  0;  House  Jour.  p.  753.  Messaged  to  Senate  March  3;  Senate 
Jour.  p.  594;  referred  to  Judiciary  Committee  (Gillett,  chairman),  and  by  that 
committee  favorably  recommended  for  passage  March  6,  (Senate  Jour.  p.  713,) 
but  allowed  to  die  without  being  called  up  for  a vote. 

By  Mr.  Brown  of  Wilson:  House  bill  No.  225,  An  act  to  protect  hotel  and 
boarding-house  keepers.  Passed  February  13,  76  to  26;  House  Jour.  p.  437. 
Messaged  to  the  Senate  the  following  day;  Senate  Jour,  p.335;  referred  to 
Judiciary  Committee  (Gillett,  chairman),  and  by  them  reported  with  recom- 
mendation to  refer  to  committee  of  the  whole;  Senate  Jour.  p.  773;  here  it 
died. 

By  Mr.  Howard:  House  bill  No.  264,  An  act  requiring  all  public,  private  and 
municipal  corporations  existing  under  the  laws  of  this  State  to  pay  their  em- 
ployes their  salaries  and  wages  weekly  in  lawful  money,  and  providing  penal- 
ties for  the  violation  of  the  provisions  of  this  act.  Passed  March  7,  85  to  4; 
House  Jour,  p.979.  Messaged  to  the  Senate  same  day;  Senate  Jour,  p.735; 
never  heard  from  again. 

By  Mr.  Soupene:  House  bill  No.  279,  An  act  conferring  upon  women  the 
right  to  vote  and  hold  office.  Passed  February  18,  69  to  34,  (House  Jour, 
p.  527,)  over  the  protest  of  Speaker  Elder  and  fifteen  others  of  all  parties. 
Messaged  to  the  Senate  the  following  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  409;  indefinitely 
postponed  March  2,  on  motion  of  Gillett;  Senate  Jour.  p.  574. 

By  Mr.  Whittington:  House  bill  No.  339,  An  act  to  abolish  the  State  Board 
of  Pardons.  Passed  Ma /eh  2,  64  to  33;  House  Jour.  p.  790.  Messaged  to  the 
Senate  following  day;  Senate  Jour,  p.594;  referred  to  Judiciary  Committee 
(Gillett,  chairman),  which  reported  to  refer  to  committee  of  the  whole;  Sen- 
ate Jour,  p.773;  here  it  died. 

By  Judiciary  Committee:  House  bill  No.  436  (substitute  for  House  bill  No. 
33),  An  act  for  the  prevention  of  lotteries.  Passed  February  20,  81  to  0;  House 
Jour.  p.  578.  Messaged  to  the  Senate  February  23;  Senate  Jour.  p.  429;  Sen- 
ate never  took  any  farther  notice  of  this  bill;  Senate  Jour.  p.  954  (this  being 
the  page  of  index  on  which  history  of  this  bill  is  recorded). 

By  Mr.  Doolittle:  House  bill  No.  348,  An  act  to  remove  political  disabilities. 
Passed  February  13, 108  to  3;  House  Jour.  p.  440.  Messaged  to  the  Senate  fol- 
lowing day;  Senate  Jour,  p.335;  referred  to  Committee  on  Judiciary  (Gillett, 
chairman),  which  reported  in  favor  of  indefinite  postponement;  Senate  Jour. 


10 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


p.  622.  When  it  appears  that  such  violent  Republican  partisans  in  the  House 
as  Rice  of  Bourbon,  Heber,  Brown  of  Harvey,  Reeder,  Nixon,  Seaton,  besides 
such  fair  men  as  Douglass,  all  voted  for  this  bill,  the  brutality  of  its  slaughter 
in  the  Senate  becomes  the  more  apparent. 

Also,  House  bill  No.  479  (substitute  for  House  bill  No.  316),  by  Judiciary 
Committee:  An  act  to  protect  the  interests  of  debtors  in  the  foreclosure  of 
mortgages  and  other  contracts  in  writing.  Passed  February  26,  89  to  0; 
House  Jour.  p.  706.  Messaged  to  Senate  same  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  507;  re- 
ferred to  Judiciary  Committee  (Gillett,  chairman);  Senate  Jour.  p.  559.  It 
found  its  grave  in  a Senate  committee’s  pigeon-hole. 

By  Judiciary  Committee : House  bill  No.  540,  An  act  relating  to  mortgages 
and  other  liens  upon  real  estate,  providing  for  the  enforcement  thereof,  and 
regulating  the  right  of  redemption  therefrom.  Passed  February  12,  107  to 
0 ; House  Jour.  p.  409.  Messaged  to  Senate  February  14  ; Senate  Jour.  p.  334  ; 
defeated  in  Senate  March  6;  Senate  Jour.  p.  707.  On  March  11,  the  House 
considered  the  amendments  passed  by  the  Senate,  and  concurred  therein,  68 
to  0;  House  Jour.  p.  1115.  On  March  9,  four  days  before  adjournment,  and 
while  the  appropriation  bills  were  crowding  for  attention,  the  Senate  struck 
out  all  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  passed  substitute  too  late  for  the  House 
to  act  upon  it;  Senate  Jour.  p.  787. 

By  Mr.  Douglass  : House  bill  No.  577,  An  act  punishing  drunkenness  in 
public  officials  by  forfeiture  of  office.  Passed  February  20,  81  to  0 ; House 
Jour.  p.  577.  Messaged  to  the  Senate  February  23  ; Senate  Jour.  p.  429  ; re- 
ferred to  Committee  on  State  Affairs  (H.  B.  Kelly,  chairman);  recommended 
for  passage  March  9 ; Senate  Jour.  p.  805  ; but  allowed  to  die  without  any  ac- 
tion. 

By  Mr.  Stephens  ( by  request ) : House  bill  No.  604,  An  act  authorizing  school 
boards  to  procure  national  flags  for  use  of  schools.  Passed  March  6,  67  to  0; 
House  Jour.  p.  949.  Messaged  to  the  Senate  same  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  716; 
died  without  action;  never  read  even  once. 

By  Mr.  Doolittle:  House  bill  No.  606,  An  act  regulating  the  discharge  of  cor- 
poration employes,  to  prevent  the  “black-listing”  of  railroad  employes,  and 
providing  penalties  for  a violation  of  this  act.  Passed  March  5,  70  to  4; 
House  Jour.  p.  894.  Messaged  to  the  Senate  same  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  669; 
read  the  second  time  March  6,  and  referred  to  committee  of  the  whole;  Sen- 
ate Jour.  p.  723;  never  called  up,  but  allowed  to  die  unnoticed.  While  this 
important  bill  was  unheeded,  on  the  same  day  the  Senate  found  time  to  pass 
local  or  private  bills  for  the  city  of  Newton;  county  of  Woodson;  Grove  town- 
ship, Reno  county;  change  the  name  of  a township;  authorize  voting  of 
$8,000  of  bonds  in  Lecompton  township,  Douglas  county,  and  seven  other 
bills  similar  in  importance,  besides  two  or  three  of  some  general  utility. 


LEGISLATURE  OF  1891. 


11 


By  Mr.  Stewart:  House  bill  No.  692,  An  act  to  prevent  the  spread  of  cholera 
among  swine.  Passed  March  3,  85  to  0;  House  Jour.  p.  818.  Messaged  to  the 
Senate  same  day;  Senate  Jour,  p.  624;  referred  to  Committee  on  Agriculture 
(Roe,  chairman),  and  reported  for  indefinite  postponement;  Senate  Jour. 

p.  802. 

By  Mr.  Neeley:  House  bill  No.  693,  An  act  to  provide  joint  rates  over  con- 
necting lines  of  railroads  in  Kansas.  Passed  February  23,  85  to  0;  House  Jour, 
p.  614.  Messaged  to  the  Senate  same  day;  Senate  Jour,  p.443;  referred  to 
Committee  on  Railroads  (Kelley  of  Crawford,  chairman),  and  by  it  reported 
favorably  March  9;  Senate  Jour,  p.805;  died  from  lack  of  attention. 

By  Mr.  Fortney:  House  bill  No.  696,  An  act  concerning  private  corporations 
organized  for  profit;  must  file  annual  report  with  Secretary  of  State.  Passed 
March  5,  72  to  2;  House  Jour.  p.  908.  Messaged  to  the  Senate  following  day; 
Senate  Jour.  p.  696;  never  called  up. 

By  Rogers  of  Marion:  House  bill  No.  698,  An  act  authorizing  the  county 
treasurer  of  counties  having  less  than  twenty-five  thousand  inhabitants  to  de- 
posit public  money  in  a bank,  or  banks,  in  the  county;  and  to  repeal  chapter 
189  of  the  Laws  of  1889.  Passed  March  4,  81  to  15;  House  Jour.  p.  836.  Mes- 
saged to  the  Senate  same  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  628.  When  put  upon  its  passage, 
Senator  Kirkpatrick  moved  to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause,  which  motion 
prevailed;  Senate  Jour.  pp.  795-6. 

Railroad  BIll  Peremptorily  Killed.  By  Committee  on  Railroads:  House 
bill  No.  707  (substitute  for  House  bill  No.  140),  An  act  relating  to  railroads, 
to  establish  a Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners,  to  prescribe  maximum  pas- 
senger rates,  to  prohibit  passes  on  railroads,  and  to  provide  penalties,  and  for 
other  purposes.  Passed  February  24,  82  to  26;  House  Jour.  pp.  623-4.  Mes- 
saged to  the  Senate  March  3;  Senate  Jour.  p.  624;  referred  to  Committee  on 
Railroads  (Kelley  of  Crawford,  chairman),  March  5;  Senate  Jour.  p.  651;  re- 
ported back  unfavorably  March  9;  Senate  Jour.  p.  805. 

By  Committee  on  Education:  Hoi^Se  bill  No.  712,  An  act  to  provide  for  a 
uniform  series  of  school  text- books,  by  publication  or  otherwise,  and  for  the 
distribution  thereof,  repealing  any  act  or  portion  thereof  in  conflict  with  this 
act.  Passed  February  24,  71  to  40;  House  Jour.  p.  640.  Messaged  to  the 
Senate  the  following  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  469;  on  February  28,  the  bill  was 
read  the  second  time,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Education  (Moody, 
chairman);  Senate  Jour.  p.  559;  on  March  10,  Senator  Moody,  from  above 
committee,  reported  back  the  bill  with  recommendation  that  it  do  not  pass, 
for  the  reason  that  a better  Senate  bill,  on  the  same  subject,  was  passed  and 
in  possession  of  the  House  before  this  bill  reached  the  Senate;  Senate  Jour, 
p.  832. 

Did  “Age-of-Consent”  Moody  think  people  would  take  his  word  on  a little 


12 


POPULIST  BAND-BOOK. 


matter  of  this  kind,  and  thus  scatter  abroad  the  impression  that  the  House 
was  engaged  in  jealous  spite-work,  and  therefore  that  he  was  justified  in  re- 
taliating in  a similar  spirit?  Now  for  the  facts: 

House  bill  712  passed  the  House  February  24,  and  was  messaged  to  the  Sen- 
ate February  25;  Senate  Jour.  p.  469.  Senate  bill  264  (on  same  subject) 
passed  the  Senate  March  2,  (Senate  Jour,  p.588,)  and  was  messaged  to  the 
House  March  3;  House  Jour.  p.  802.  Thus  Senator  Moody  is  convicted  of 
placing  a falsehood  in  his  report  to  the  amount  of  seven  days,  and  conclu- 
sively proves  that  he  was  afraid  to  report  against  the  bill  on  its  merits,  and 
took  this  cowardly  method  to  stab  the  House,  even  in  using  falsehood  to  do  it. 

By  Mr.  Scott : House  bill  No.  718,  An  act  to  compel  railroad  and  other  as- 
sessors to  assess  railroad  property  at  its  true  value  in  money,  and  providing 
a penalty  for  violation  thereof.  Passed  March  5,  80  to  8 ; House  Jour.  p.  896. 
Messaged  to  the  Senate  same  day  ; Senate  Jour.  p.  669  ; referred  to  Commit- 
tee on  Assessment  and  Taxation  (Harkness,  chairman),  and  reported  by  him 
for  reference  to  committee  of  the  whole,  March  9 ; Senate  Jour.  p.  805  ; here 
it  died. 

Another  Railroad  Bill  Slaughtered.  By  Committee  on  Railroads:  House 
bill  No.  743  (substitute  for  House  bill  No.  210),  An  act  to  regulate  and  estab- 
lish reasonable  maximum  charges  for  the  transportation  of  freight  on  the 
different  lines  of  railroads  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  providing  for  a State 
Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners,  with  general  powers  of  supervision  over 
the  transportation  lines  within  the  State,  and  giving  to  such  commissioners 
full  power  and  authority  to  control,  fix  and  regulate  the  charges  and  rates  to 
be  collected  by  railroad  and  transportation  lines  for  carrying  freight  over  such 
lines  and  roads  in  Kansas,  and  to  prevent  unjust  and  unreasonable  discrimi- 
nations in  such  charges,  and  providing  for  the  selection  of  such  commission- 
ers, and  the  manner  in  which  they  shall  be  chosen,  and  prescribing  their 
compensation  and  duties,  and  making  appropriations  to  enforce  this  act. 
Passed  February  26,  85  to  25;  House  Jour.  p.  713.  Messaged  to  the  Senate 
same  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  507;  referred  to  Senate  Committee  on  Railroads 
(Kelley  of  Crawford,  chairman),  on  February  28,  and  by  it  reported  unfavor- 
ably on  March  9 ; Senate  Jour.  p.  806. 

By  Mr.  Elder  : House  bill  No.  833,  An  act  declaring  gold  and  silver  coin  of 
the  United  States  a legal  tender  for  all  debts  within  the  State,  and  prohibit- 
ing contracts  for  gold  payments.  Passed  March  7,  73  to  13;  House  Jour, 
p.  989.  Messaged  to  the  Senate  same  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  755;  omitted  men- 
tion in  Senate  index  p.  964;  never  further  noticed  in  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Elder  introduced  House  bill  No.  842,  An  act  to  abolish  the  Thirty-second 
Judicial  District.  Passed  March  3,  67  to  30;  House  Jour,  p.823.  Messaged 
to  Senate  the  following  day;  Senate  Jour.  p.  629.  The  object  of  this  bill  was 


LEGISLATURE  OF  1891. 


13 


to  get  rid  of  Judge  Botkin  without  the  expense  of  $40,000  for  an  impeach- 
ment trial.  The  evidence  all  showed  he  was  a disgrace  to  the  State,  and  the 
abolition  of  his  district  was  thought  to  be  the  shortest  and  cheapest  way  out 
of  the  matter.  The  Senate  however,  regardless  of  cost  and  with  much  high- 
sounding  rhetoric  about  the  guaranties  of  the  constitution,  decided  to  expend 
many  thousand  dollars  in  a mock  trial  (as  the  trial  proved  to  be),  only  to  re- 
tain in  office  a drunken  debauchee,  and  convict  themselves  of  being  the  most 
senseless  partisans  yet  discovered.  They  refused  to  pass  the  above  bill, 
March  6;  Senate  Jour.  p.  711. 

In  relation  to  Senate  bill  No.  268,  or  its  substitute,  providing  for  World’s 
Fair  appropriation  of  $50,000,  and  appointment  of  commissioners  for  the 
same:  Much  time  was  spent  over  this  bill,  the  Senate  insisting  on  the  selec- 
tion of  commissioners  in  such  a manner  that  a majority  of  them  should  be  Re- 
publicans. The  House  insisted  that  the  board  should  be  chosen,  three  by  the 
House  (one  to  be  a Democrat),  and  two  by  the  Senate,  but  the  Senate  insisted 
that  each  branch  choose  two  and  the  Governor  appoint  one;  Senate  Jour, 
p.  882.  This  was  so  as  to  insure  a Republican  majority  on  the  board,  which, 
for  all  purposes  of  reckless  extravagance,  would  be  as  good  as  the  entire  board. 
The  final  vote  in  the  House  was  taken  on  the  proposition  containing  the  pro- 
vision for  the  appointment  of  three  by  the  House  and  two  by  the  Senate. 
The  vote  stood,  75  for  and  22  against. 

M.  W.  Cobun  presented  the  following  protest  against  its  passage: 

When  the  doors  of  the  treasury  are  once  opened  to  fill  the  requirements  of  this  bill,  it  is  but 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  will  end  with  the  expenditure  of  $100,000  or  $150,000.  Now,  let  us 
look  the  mattter  squarely  in  the  face,  and  ask  ourselves  the  question:  Is  it  wise,  is  it  just  or 
prudent  to  cast  our  votes  for  such  a large  appropriation,  knowing  as  we  do  the  condition  of  the 
people  off  whom  it  would  come?  The  reputation  of  our  State  has  suffered  by  the  false  and  ma- 
licious misrepresentations  of  a partisan  press  and  the  representatives  of  moneyed  rings.  Banks 
and  loan  agents  have  written  to  Eastern  loan  companies  the  most  willful  misrepresentations; 
then  published  far  and  wide  threatening  letters,  purporting  to  have  come  from  them,  that  they 
would  close  their  present  loans  and  withdraw  their  capital  from  our  State  — to  intimidate  and 
coerce  our  people,  whose  only  crime  was  that  they  dared  to  assert  their  constitutional  rights, 
and  hurl  from  power  a party  that  had  been  false  to  its  pledges.  Let  us  look  at  the  facts  as  they 
stand  before  us.  We  need  not  consume  time  to  go  back  to  past  history  to  find  them.  We  need 
only  refer  to  the  daily  journals  of  this  present  Legislature.  There  you  will  see  the  indisputable 
evidence  that  the  representatives  of  the  Republican  party  on  this  floor  have  recorded  their 
votes  against  every  general  measure  intended  by  the  majority  for  the  relief  of  the  people. 

Now,  at  the  close  of  this  session,  after  a Republican  Senate  has  pigeon-holed  all  of  our  im- 
portant bills,  they  come  to  us  beseeching  us  to  vote  away  from  our  already  burdened  tax-payers 
this  vast  sum  of  money,  to  contradict  and  give  the  lie  to  what  they  have  already  published 
to  the  world  against  our  people.  I would  say  to  the  other  branch  of  this  Legislature,  if  you  are 
so  willing  to  impose  this  burden  upon  the  people",  it  is  but  simple  justice  that  you  should  do 
something  for  them  in  return : pass  the  bill  relating  to  the  foreclosure  of  mortgages;  the  bill 
preventing  the  taking  of  usury;  the  bill  reducing  the  passenger  and  freight  rates  on  our  rail- 
roads ; the  bill  making  silver  a legal  tender  for  all  debts  in  this  State.  Do  that,  and  we  will 


14 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


join  hands  with  you  in  any  enterprise  to  uphold  the  honor  and  increase  the  prosperity  of  our 
State. 

Who  is  it  that  are  here  lobbying  in  the  interests  of  this  bill?  Is  it  the  tillers  of  our  soil? 
No;  it  is  the  place-hunters,  the  land  and  loan  agents,  already  loaded  down  by  past  booms,  and 
now  seek  to  inaugurate  another,  to  unload  their  depreciated  securities.  We,  who  represent 
the  majority  on  this  floor,  come  from  among  that  class  of  people  that  pay  more  than  their  just 
proportion  of  the  expenses  of  our  State  government;  they  pay  tax  on  all  they  have;  their 
property  is  all  visible  and  cannot  be  concealed  from  the  scrutiny  of  the  assessors.  They  are 
not  the  holders  of  bank  stocks,  railroad  stocks,  or  other  bonds  locked  up  in  safes,  whose  locks 
and  bolts  will  not  yield,  even  to  the  solemn  obligations  of  an  oath.  We  come  from  a people 
that  have  to  battle  with  drouths  and  hot  winds;  adverse  seasons  have  driven  them  to  the  last 
emergency,  to  borrow  money  at  ruinous  rates  of  interest,  which  has  eaten  up  their  substance, 
and  left  them  hopelessly  in  debt.  We  came  here  pledged  to  retrenchment  and  reform.  Let  us 
stand  by  our  pledges  to  the  end. 

I therefore  vote  “ No  ” on  this  bill.  M.  W.  Cobun. 

Following  is  the  manifesto  issued  by  the  chairmen  of  the  various  House 
committees,  upon  the  work  accomplished,  or  attempted. 


[From  the  Nonconformist  of  March  26,  1891.] 

PEOPLE’S  MANIFESTO. 

A Splendid  Showing  for  the  People’s  Representatives. — The  Republican  Senate  Called  to  Ac- 
count for  Vetoing  the  People’s  Will,  and  Blocking  Needed  Legislation. — Important  Meas- 
ures Called  for  by  Popular  Demand  Meet  Their  Death  at  the  Hands  of  Republican  Politicians 
in  the  Hold-Over  Senate. 

To  the  People  of  the  State  of  Kansas:  Having  closed  our  work  in  the  Legis- 
lature, we,  through  our  duly-appointed  committee,  submit  the  result  of  our 
labors  to  your  consideration,  firmly  convinced  that  it  will  receive  your  ap- 
proval. 

The  Legislature  met  January  13th,  as  provided  by  law.  Hon.  P.  P.  Elder 
was  unanimously  elected  Speaker.  The  committees  were  at  once  appointed, 
and  the  House  proceeded  to  business  on  the  second  day  thereafter,  with  a 
celerity  hitherto  unknown  in  the  history  of  this  State,  and  were  at  work  two 
days  earlier  than  any  prior  Legislature.  The  Senate,  elected  two  years  ago 
last  fall,  with  two  or  three  exceptions  was  opposed  to  our  party  and  the  plat- 
form upon  which  we  were  elected.  The  Governor  and  executive  departments 
of  the  State,  with  the  exception  of  the  Attorney  General,  were  also  in  opposi- 
tion to  us.  No  effort  was  spared  by  our  opponents  to  divide  and  disorganize 
our  party.  We  were  told  that  the  farmers  could  not  and  would  not  stick  to- 
gether. The  daily  press,  not  only  here  in  Topeka,  but  all  over  the  State,  with 
two  honorable  exceptions,  were  opposed  to  us. 

The  first  matter  of  importance  was  the  election  of  State  Printer.  The  Peo- 
ple’s candidate,  E.  H.  Snow,  of  Ottawa,  was  elected  on  joint  ballot,  receiving 


PEOPLE'S  MANIFESTO^ 


15 


101  votes.  For  years  Mr.  Snow  has  been  advocating  our  principles,  and  was 
and  is  in  full  sympathy  with  our  demands.  The  People’s  Party,  in  conference, 
after  hearing  the  claims  of  all  candidates  presented,  decided  on  W.  A.  Peffer, 
editor  of  the  Kansas  Farmer,  a man  who  largely  contributed  to  the  success  of 
our  party,  for  the  high  office  of  United  States  Senator,  to  succeed  John  J.  In- 
galls, and  he  was  elected,  without  a break  in  our  ranks.  The  result  itself  was 
worth  all  the  effort  of  our  party  last  fall,  as  it  marks  a new  era  in  the  politics 
of  this  State,  and  indicates  the  grand  success  of  the  party  in  the  nation  in 
1892. 

The  schooled  Republican  politicians  of  the  nation  were  gathered  in  Topeka, 
and  our  footsteps  were  dogged  by  “hired  Hessians”  at  every  turn,  with  offers 
of  pelf  and  political  honors,  but  without  effect.  We  point  to  this  with  pride, 
as  demonstrating  that  the  chosen  representatives  of  the  People’s  Party  have 
proven  the  falsehood  of  the  rule  of  the  ring  politician,  that  “every  man  has 
his  price.” 

We  found  upon  our  statute  books  a large  number  of  laws  creating  boards 
of  commissioners,  State  agents,  etc.,  which  seemed  to  have  been  placed  there 
for  the  express  purpose  of  providing  places  for  favorites,  rather  than  for  any 
benefit  to  the  State;  but  we  have  found  it  impossible  to  repeal  these  laws, 
with  the  Senate  and  executive  department  making  a bitter  fight  against  abol- 
ishing these  sinecures. 

An  attempt  was  made  on  the  part  of  the  House,  in  good  faith,  and  without 
any  attempt  to  cripple  any  State  institution,  penal,  charitable  or  educational, 
to  reduce  the  expenses  to  something  like  an  equality  with  the  earnings  of  the 
average  citizen  of  Kansas.  This  attempt  was  met  by  the  Senate  with  an  ab- 
solute refusal  to  consider  any  proposition  which  reduced  the  wages  or  salaries 
of  employes  of  State  institutions^which  were  under  Republican  management. 
We  present  hereafter  a comparison  of  appropriations  made  two  years  ago 
and  the  appropriations  made  this  session.  The  Senate  insisted  on  higher 
appropriations,  except  in  the  proposition  to  appropriate  $60,000  for  the  re- 
lief of  the  people  in  the  western  part  of  the  State,  who  were  suffering  from 
the  severe  drouth  of  last  year,  and  an  appropriation  of  $115,000  to  provide 
for  the  destitute  insane,  who  have  been  for  years  past  confined  in  the  county 
jails  in  this  State.  The  People’s  Party  of  the  House  originated  and  passed 
the  bill  appropriating  $60,000  for  the  relief  of  the  western  farmers  of  this 
State,  which  was  defeated  by  the  Senate.  We  have  not  forgotten  that,  during 
the  drouth  in  eastern  Kansas,  in  1860,  several  northern  State  Legislatures  ap- 
propriated large  sums  of  money  for  the  relief  of  the  people;  but  when  the 
People’s  Party  passed  the  bill  in  the  House  for  the  purpose  of  relieving  west- 
ern Kansas  from  a similar  infliction,  the  Senate  discovered  that  all  such  leg- 
islation was  unconstitutional.  By  amendment,  insisted  upon  by  the  Senate, 


16 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


the  different  counties  in  the  western  part  of  the  State  were  made  responsible 
for  the  distribution  of  seed  grain  sent  to  them,  and  the  price  thereof  must  be 
returned  to  the  State  treasury,  while  the  recipients,  in  the  eastern  part  of  the 
State,  of  the  bounties  extended  to  them  in  1860,  refused,  through  their  Re- 
publican Representatives  and  Senators,  to  assist  one  dollar  in  the  relief  of 
suffering  in  western  Kansas. 

The  Legislature  of  this  session  has  not  resulted  in  what  we  desired  to  ac- 
complish, nor  in  what  the  people  would  have  had  the  right  to  expect  from  us 
had  we  been  in  power  in  all  the  branches  of  the  State  government. 

By  and  with  the  aid  of  the  Senate,  473  acts  were  passed,  and  will  become 
laws  upon  our  statute  books,  among  the  most  important  of  which  is:  Prohibit- 
ing alien  ownership  of  land  in  Kansas,  and  providing  for  the  sale  of  all  lands 
owned  by  aliens,  acquired  after  the  date  of  this  act,  in  from  three  to  six  years’ 
time,  or  upon  the  death  of  aliens  holding  previous  to  the  enactment  of  this  law. 

The  following  House  bills  were  concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  and  are  now  a 
part  of  the  laws  of  the  State: 

To  authorize  the  sale  of  alcohol  by  wholesale  druggists  and  dealers  in  pho- 
tographers’ supplies,  and  for  other  purposes. 

Apportioning  the  State  of  Kansas  into  Senatorial  and  Representative  dis- 
tricts. 

An  act  to  abolish  survivorship  in  joint  tenancy. 

An  act  to  establish  an  experimental  station  at  the  State  University  of  Kansas, 
to  promote  and  conduct  experiments  for  the  destruction  of  chinch-bugs  by 
contagion  or  infection,  and  making  an  appropriation  therefor. 

Requiring  moneys  coming  into  the  hands  of  county  treasurers  in  certain 
counties  to  be  deposited  in  banks. 

For  the  continuance  and  maintenance  of  forestry  stations. 

Act  constituting  eight  hours  a day’s  work  for  all  workingmen  employed  by 
the  State,  counties,  cities,  or  townships. 

An  act  to  regulate  warehouses,  the  inspection,  grading,  weighing  and  hand- 
ling of  grain. 

An  act  relating  to  the  sale  of  real  estate  for  delinquent  taxes  for  such  coun- 
ties as  shall  adopt  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

Joint  resolution  recommending  the  calling  of  a convention  to  revise,  amend 
or  change  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Kansas. 

An  act  prohibiting  combinations  to  prevent  competition  among  persons 
engaged  in  buying  or  selling  live  stock,  and  to  provide  penalties  therefor. 

The  House  Committee  on  Banks  and  Banking  prepared  a bill  regulating  and 
controlling  all  banks  within  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  submitted  it,  not  only 
to  the  leading  bankers  of  Kansas,  but  of  the  West.  The  Senate  had  also  pre- 
pared a bill  regulating  the  banks  of  Kansas,  but  the  House  substituted  for  it 


PEOPLE'S  MANIFESTO. 


17 


the  House  committee  banking  bill,  and  it  was  passed  by  an  almost  unanimous 
vote  of  the  House,  and  by  a large  majority  in  the  Senate.  This  bill  will  put 
an  end  to  the  era  of  “wild-cat”  banking  in  Kansas. 

The  following  are  some  important  bills  that  passed  our  House,  but  were  de- 
feated by  the  Senate : 

After  a careful  examination,  the  House  adopted  the  Iowa  schedule  <$f  freights 
and  fares,  increasing  them,  however,  nearly  20  per  cent,  above  the  Iowa  rail- 
road rates,  which  was  an  average  reduction  of  present  Kansas  rates  of  13  per 
cent.  This  bill  also  provided  that  no  more  should  be  charged  for  a short  haul 
than  for  a long  one.  It  also  provided  for  election  of  Railroad  Commissioners 
by  direct  vote  of  the  people,  with  power  to  change  freight  rates  as  conditions 
required.  The  Republican  Senate  refused  to  even  consider  this  bill.  The 
present  Railroad  Commissioners  used  their  influence  against  the  considera- 
tion of  the  bill,  and  showed  that  they  were  opposed  to  the  people,  and  were 
the  mere  employes  of  corporations.  On  no  subject  that  came  before  us  was 
as  persistent  a fight  made  as  on  this  transportation  question.  Every  railroad 
attorney  in  the  State  was  present,  in  addition  to  the  railroad  officials,  and  in 
order  to  show  a spirit  of  fairness  they  were  all  allowed  to  come  before  the 
Committee  on  Railroads  and  show  why  freight  rates  should  not  be  reduced. 
All  the  evidence  was  sifted,  and  after  weeks  of  hard  labor  by  the  committee, 
the  bill  was  formulated  and  presented  to  the  House.  The  Republican  minority 
fought  the  bill  with  all  the  weapons  of  parliamentary  law,  the  oft-repeated 
tales  of  widows  and  orphans  owning  the  watered  stock  on  which  Western 
producers  and  consumers  are  made  to  pay  tribute  were  rehearsed,  but  our 
lines  did  not  waver,  and  we  sent  it  over  to  the  Senate.  This  bill  was  intro- 
duced into  the  House  on  February  13,  and  referred  to  the  committee  of  the 
whole.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  th^original  bill  got  lost  in  the  safe  of  the  Re- 
publican State  Printer,  it  was  February  26  before  this  bill  passed  the  House, 
but  no  effort  was  made  to  consider  it  in  the  Senate,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
eighteen  days  intervened  before  adjournment. 

Bills  were  also  passed  by  the  House  reducing  fares  on  railroads  to  2i  cents 
per  mile,  and  prohibiting  the  issuing  of  free  passes,  and  compelling  railroads 
to  furnish  freight  cars  on  five  days’  notice.  The  Senate  refused  to  even  con- 
sider this  measure. 

The  House  also  passed  a bill  that,  had  it  become  a law,  would  have  driven 
unscrupulous  Shylocks  who  are  robbing  the  people  by  a usurious  interest  of 
from  25  to  100  per  cent,  per  annum  out  of  the  State,  or  forced  them  to  be- 
come honest,  law-abiding  citizens,  by  loaning  their  money  at  a legal  rate  of 
10  per  cent.  The  bill  provided  for  forfeiture  of  both  principal  and  interest 
in  case  of  usury,  and  is  nearly  a copy  of  the  New  York  laws  on  this  subject. 

The  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  killed  this  bill,  on  the  ground  that  it  would 

s 


\ 


18 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


drive  capital  out  of  the  State,  thereby  admitting  there  is  no  penalty  on  the 
statute  books  of  the  State,  and  that  the  borrower  is  wholly  at  the  mercy  of 
the  lender. 

We  passed  an  equity  of  redemption  bill,  giving  to  the  mortgagor  two  years 
to  redeem  his  home  after  foreclosure,  making  the  property  encumbered 
satisfy  the  mortgage,  and  no  personal  judgment.  It  reduced  the  cost  of 
foreclosure,  and  would  have  acted  as  a stay  law  to  existing  contracts  for  two 
years  at  least.  Governor  Humphrey,  in  his  famous  “Gath”  interview,  said 
“that  one  firm  of  lawyers  alone  had  15,000  foreclosures.”  It  was  to  relieve  this 
class  of  our  State  citizens,  in  danger  of  losing  their  homes,  that  the  bill 
was  passed,  besides,  with  such  a law  on  the  statute  books  of  every  other  State 
in  the  Union,  with  one  exception,  we  thought  that  Kansas  homes  should  have 
equal  protection  with  those  of  other  States.  The  promise  of  such  a law  has 
been  made  for  at  least  eight  years  by  the  Republican  party  represented  by 
the  Senate,  yet  in  the  face  of  these  facts  the  Senate  amended  the  bill  in  every 
conceivable  way  that  would  hamper  and  kill  its  object,  and  then  attached  a 
clause  that  it  should  not  apply  to  mortgages  already  given.  They  sent  it 
back  to  us;  we  struck  off  the  amendment,  we  repassed  the  bill,  sent  it  back 
to  the  Senate,  which  refused  to  receive  it  on  account  of  senatorial  dignity, 
claiming  it  was  outside  the  rules,  and  the  groans  of  the  oppressed  must  not 
be  heeded  at  the  expense  of  senatorial  dignity.  The  bill  setting  aside  a sale 
on  account  of  an  inadequate  price  and  repealing  the  waiver  of  appraisement 
was  introduced  and  passed  in  the  Senate  early  in  the  session,  and  was  known 
as  the  Mohler  bill.  It  came  down  to  the  House,  but  before  it  could  be  reached 
on  the  calendar,  the  Senate  changed  its  mind,  from  just  what  influence  we  are 
unable  to  state,  recalled  it,  and  made  it  a special  order  for  April  1,  virtually 
killing  the  bill,  and  making  relief  an  “April  fool”  for  every  poor,  mortgaged 
farmer  and  laborer  in  the  State.  It  was  a good  bill,  and  would  have  protected 
our  homes.  A similar  bill  was  introduced  and  passed  in  the  House,  and  we 
sent  it  over  to  the  Senate,  and  it  died  on  their  calendar,  the  change  of  heart 
they  experienced  when  they  withdrew  their  bill  from  the  House  having  never 
left  them. 

We  also  passed  a law  compelling  the  original  mortgage  to  be  brought  into 
court  in  foreclosures  instead  of  a copy,  as  is  being  done  now.  Hundreds  of 
foreclosures  have  been  made  all  over  the  State  with  copies  that  will  cause  liti- 
gation for  years  and  insecure  titles.  Two  judges  have  decided  that  under  the 
old  law  this  must  be  done,  but  the  Supreme  Court  has  never  passed  on  the 
question,  and  in  order  to  give  immediate  relief  a bill  was  introduced  and 
passed  in  the  House,  but  it  gave  up  its  life  in  the  Senate. 

The  House  also  passed  a bill  making  silver  dollars  and  half-dollars  legal 
tender  for  all  debts  contracted  in  the  State,  and  declaring  gold  contracts  null 


PEOPLE'S  MANIFESTO. 


19 


and  void.  This  bill  was  bitterly  opposed  by  the  Republicans  in  the  House,  on 
the  theory  that  it  would  ruin  our  credit  and  drive  capital  out  of  our  State, 
and  the  Senate  refused  to  even  consider  it  at  all. 

We  passed  an  assessment  bill  that  would  compel  those  persons  who  have 
been  in  the  habit  of  concealing  their  notes  and  allowing  the  honest  people 
and  farmers  of  this  State  to  pay  their  share  of  the  taxes,  and  was  a search 
warrant  that  would  cause  all  taxable  property  to  be  listed.  It  failed  to  go  on 
the  statute  book  from  a death  stroke  by  the  Senate.  For  the  purity  of  the 
ballot  we  passed  the  law  that  has  given  such  general  satisfaction  wherever 
tried,  known  as  the  Australian  ballot  bill,  not  only  of  our  own  platform  but 
of  the  Republicans  also.  It  went  over  to  the  Senate  early  in  the  session,  but 
expired  on  the  calendar.  If  the  House  had  killed  it  we  would  have  been 
charged  with  being  unfriendly  to  a free  ballot.  As  it  is,  we  wish  to  be  chari- 
table and  let  the  people  judge  as  to  their  motive. 

We  appropriated  $50,000  for  the  World’s  Fair  at  Chicago,  in  1893,  and  pro- 
vided that  there  should  be  five  commissioners,  to  be  elected  as  follows:  Two 
by  the  Senate,  two  by  the  House,  and  one  by  the  Democrats  of  the  House. 
This  we  considered  a fair  distribution  of  managers,  as  the  Republicans  cast 
116,000  votes,  the  People’s  Party  108,000,  and  the  Democrats  about  60,000;  but 
the  Senate  said:  “We  must  have  three  out  of  five,  or  else  Kansas  will  have  to 
stay  at  home.”  The  Senate  passed  a bill  which  had  attached  to  it  a complete 
revision  of  the  State  Board  of  Agriculture  of  Kansas,  and  which  provided  for 
the  election  of  said  Board  as  a State  officer.  The  Secretary  was  to  be  made 
a member  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  the  Columbian  exposition.  Un- 
der the  theory  that  such  Secretary  should  be  a member  of  said  Board,  the 
Senate  absolutely  refused  to  consider  any  World’s  Fair  appropriation  which 
did  not  have  the  reorganization  of  the  State  Board  of  Agriculture  as  a condi- 
tion thereof.  Until  11  o’clock  the  night  before  adjournment,  when  no  quorum 
was  in  the  House,  no  bill  ever  passed  the  Senate,  or  was  ever  considered  in 
the  Senate,  which  did  not  have  those  provisions  attached. 

The  following,  in  addition  to  the  above,  are  some  of  the  important  bills 
passed  by  the  House,  which  the  Senate  refused  to  pass: 

An  act  prescribing  penalties  for  accepting  bribes. 

Act  to  abolish  the  corrupt  use  of  money  and  corrupt  acts  at  elections. 

Relating  to  continuances  in  district  courts. 

Prohibiting  railroad  companies  from  employing  or  using  private  armed 
detective  forces  during  railroad  strikes  or  other  disturbances  arising  between 
such  railroad  companies  and  their  employes,  and  providing  penalties  for  the 
violation  thereof. 

Relating  to  the  redemption  of  lands  sold  for  taxes,  and  amendatory  to  tax 


20 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


law  of  1876,  chapter  43  of  Laws  of  1879,  and  reducing  interest  on  the  same  to 
10  per  cent. 

Act  with  reference  to  the  verdict  of  juries,  and  to  amend  section  286  of  the 
code  of  civil  procedure,  being  paragraph  4381  of  the  General  Statutes  of  1885, 
doing  away  with  special  findings. 

To  protect  counties,  cities  and  townships  against  the  illegal  or  fraudulent 
acts  of  their  officers. 

To  prohibit  subscription  of  stock  or  voting  bonds  for  the  construction  of 
railroads. 

To  provide  for  the  weekly  payment  of  wages  in  lawful  money  of  the  United 
States. 

To  amend  section  8,  chapter  93,  Session  Laws  of  1871,  being  an  act  entitled 
“An  act  to  establish  an  insurance  department  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  to 
regulate  the  companies  doing  business  therein,”  and  to  compel  the  payment 
of  policies  in  full  or  the  rebuilding  of  destroyed  property. 

The  attempt  to  rearrange  and  change  the  fees  and  salaries  of  county  officers 
in  the  State  resulted  in  the  passage  of  two  bills,  one  by  each  House,  and  the 
inability  to  agree.  Owing  to  the  conflicting  interests  at  stake  in  the  different 
counties  of  this  State,  the  House,  through  its  members  of  the  conference  com- 
mittee, agreed  that  each  county  should  arrange  and  suggest  to  the  committee 
the  amount  to  be  paid  to  each  county  officer,  and  after  such  report  had  been 
made  to  the  committee,  and  the  conference  committee  had  agreed  to  accept 
it,  and  had  reported  the  same  to  the  two  houses,  the  House  promptly  passed 
the  conference  committee  bill,  but  the  Senate  refused  to  join  therein,  and  the 
measure  did  not  become  a law. 

To  provide  for  an  inspector  of  hogs  and  cattle  offered  for  sale  at  the  stock 
yards  located  within  the  county  of  Wyandotte,  defining  his  duties  and  tenure 
of  office,  and  removing  all  restrictions  in  trade  of  dead  hogs  and  cattle 
therein. 

Limiting  the  power  of  counties,  townships  and  cities  to  borrow  money  and 
create  indebtedness. 

To  prohibit  private  banks  from  doing  business  in  any  other  than  the  indi- 
vidual names  of  the  proprietors,  and  providing  penalties  for  the  violation 
thereof. 

To  prohibit  counties,  townships  and  cities  from  voting  aid  except  for 
buildings,  bridges,  and  school-houses. 

To  destroy  election  returns  after  the  expiration  of  five  years. 

Conferring  upon  women  the  right  to  vote  and  hold  office. 

An  act  for  the  prevention  of  lotteries. 

An  act  to  abolish  the  State  Board  of  Pardons. 


PEOPLE'S  MANIFESTO. 


21 


An  act  to  amend  the  code  of  civil  procedure.  This  would  have  reduced  the 
work  of  the  Supreme  Court  one-half. 

To  punish  drunkenness  in  public  offices  by  forfeiture  of  office. 

Regulating  the  discharge  of  corporation  employes,  to  prevent  black-listing 
of  railroad  employes,  and  to  provide  penalties  for  the  violation  thereof. 

To  provide  joint  rates  over  connecting  lines  of  railroad  in  Kansas. 

To  authorize  county  treasurers  of  counties  having  less  than  25,000  inhabi- 
tants to  deposit  public  moneys  in  a bank  or  banks  in  the  counties,  and  to  re- 
peal chapter  189  of  the  Laws  of  1889. 

To  provide  for  a uniform  series  of  school  books,  by  publication  or  other- 
wise, and  for  the  distribution  thereof,  repealing  any  acts  or  portions  thereof 
in  conflict  with  this  act.  This  bill,  so  manifestly  just  and  proper,  and  in  the 
interest  of  the  people,  the  Senate  refused  to  pass. 

The  appropriation  for  the  next  two  years,  while  thousands  of  dollars  lower 
than  in  the  years  past,  has  been  swelled  by  necessary  investigations  and  by 
the  impeachment  of  one  of  the  Republican  district  judges  of  the  State.  It 
became  the  duty  of  the  present  House,  forced  upon  it  by  Republicans  living 
in  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  to  investigate  charges  of  drunkenness, 
fraud,  etc.,  preferred  against  Judge  Theo.  Botkin.  The  investigation  resulted 
in  the  preferment  of  articles  of  impeachment  for  high  crimes  and  misdemean- 
ors. After  the  impeachment  had  been  ordered  by  the  House,  we  attempted 
to  follow  the  recommendations  of  the  Republican  revision  committee  of  the 
Senate  to  abolish  the  district  in  the  judicial  apportionment  in  Kansas,  and 
at  the  same  time  relieve  the  State  from  the  expense  of  the  impeachment  trial, 
and  the  bill  was  passed  through  the  House  abolishing  the  Thirty-second  Judi- 
cial District.  The  Senate  refused  to  even  consider  the  bill,  which  would  have 
saved  the  enormous  expense  of  impeachment,  and  immediately  organized  as 
a court  of  impeachment.  The  expenses  of  the  investigation  and  the  impeach- 
ment simply  increase  the  regular  appropriation  of  the  two  years.  In  addi- 
tion, the  House  commenced  investigation  of  the  construction  of  the  State 
capitol,  where  over  $2,500,000  has  already  been  expended,  and  at  the  time  of 
adjournment  discovered  that  the  end  was  not  reached  and  that  further  inves- 
tigation should  be  made;  and  the  expense  of  such  investigation  can  also  be 
added  to  the  list  of  regular  appropriations.  This  report  will  be  printed. 

The  notorious  Coffeyville  explosion  of  two  years  ago  came  prominently  be- 
fore this  Legislature,  and  a legislative  committee,  composed  jointly  of  Sena- 
tors and  Representatives,  was  appointed  to  examine  into  the  facts  relating 
to  such  explosion;  and  that  investigation  is  yet  incomplete,  but  the  expense 
can  be  added  to  the  legitimate  regular  expense  of  the  biennial  period. 

The  regular  appropriations  under  Republican  rule  for  the  two  years  end- 


22 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


ing  June  30,  1891,  were  about  $3,250,000;  then  add  deficiencies,  amounting  to 
nearly  $350,000,  and  their  expense  is  $3,600,000.  The  appropriations  made 
by  the  present  Legislature,  including  the  deficiencies  made  by  the  Legislature 
of  1889,  amount  to  $2,600,000,  a saving  of  a million  dollars  in  current  ex- 
penses. They  also  include  the  expenses  of  this  Legislature,  and  carefully- 
estimated  current  expenses  of  the  Legislature  of  1893,  and  the  payment  of  all 
bills  to  June  30,  1893.  The  Legislature  of  1889  left  as  a debt  against  the  State 
of  Kansas  the  payment  of  salaries  and  expenses  to  every  board  connected 
with  every  State  charitable,  educational,  and  penal  institution;  it  also  failed 
to  provide  for  the  payment  of  sheriffs  taking  prisoners  to  the  penitentiary; 
also  the  payment  of  sugar  bounty  provided  for  under  the  law  passed  by  the 
Legislature  of  that  year;  also  for  the  payment  of  expenses  for  providing  for 
the  destitute  insane  of  the  State;  it  also  lacked  nearly  $80,000  of  providing 
for  the  State  Printer  and  for  the  State  Fish  Commissioner,  and  numerous 
other  items,  aggregating  a grand  sum  total  of  about  $350,000.  All  of  these 
bills,  so  far  as  they  have  come  to  the  attention  of  this  Legislature,  have  been 
provided  for  and  paid  by  the  People’s  Party  in  the  House.  The  only  serious 
difficulty  which  has  been  compromised  by  the  House  was  one  in  which  the 
Senate  demanded  that  the  House  should  make  an  appropriation  to  provide 
for  the  expenses  of  the  Senate  Revision  Committee,  provided  for  two  years 
ago  under  Senate  resolution.  By  consent  of  the  House  at  that  time,  an  ap- 
propriation of  $1,500  was  made  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  same.  This  House 
refused  to  pay  the  expenses  of  that  committee  exceeding  the  $1,500,  unless 
itemized  statements  were  filed  with  Auditor  of  State.  After  a struggle  last- 
ing nearly  a week,  the  House  forced  the  revision  committee  to  file  their  bill. 
That  bill  is  herewith  included,  item  by  item. 

These  items,  it  will  be  understood,  were  in  case  of  a fixed  appropriation, 
and  made  in  violation  of  the  law  by  Senators  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  which 
law  provided  for  their  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  in  case  they  exceeded 
the  appropriation.  The  House  finally  passed  the  bill  which  left  these  gentle- 
men free. 

The  value  of  the  work  done  by  the  Senate  Revision  Committee  is  submitted 
to  the  people  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  in  connection  with  the  declaration 
of  the  most  prominent  attorneys  in  the  city  of  Topeka,  that  their  work  could 
have  been  reasonably  done  at  an  expense  of  $500. 

F.  P.  Harkness 187  days’  service $561  00 

34  days’  service 102  00 

41  days’  service „ 123  00 

4 days’  service 12  00 

200  miles,  at  15  cents 30  00 

clerk  hire  for  committee 1 , 150  00 

clerk  hire  for  committee 79  20  $2,057  20 


PEOPLE'S  MANIFESTO. 


28 


C.  H.  Kimball 187  days’  service 

‘ ‘ 24  days’  service 

‘ ‘ 17  days’  service 

‘ ‘ 4 days’  service 

‘ ‘ 34  days’  service 

4 1 430  miles,  at  15  cents. 


$561  00 
72  00 
51  00 
12  00 
102  00 

64  00  $862  00 


Joel  Moody 187  days’  service 

4 4 34  days’  service 

1 ‘ 24  days’  service 

4 4 17  days’  service........ 

4 ‘ 4 days’  service 

4 4 292  miles,  at  15  cents. 


561  00 
102  00 
72  00 
51  00 
12  00 
43  00 


M.  C.  Kelley 187  days’  service 

‘ 1 17  days’  service 

4 4 4 days’  service 

‘ ‘ 34  days’  service 

4 ‘ 24  days’  service 

4 4 378  miles,  at  15  cents. 


561  00 
51  00 
12  (JO 
102  00 
72  00 
56  70 


841  00 


854  70 


T.  B.  Murdock 187  days’  service 561  00 

“ 13  days’ service ; 39  00 

“ 23  days’ service 69  00 

“ 11  days’  service 33  00 

“ 11  days’ service 33  00 

17  days’  service 51  00 

4 4 4 days’ service 12  00 

1 1 272  miles,  at  15  cents 40  80 


838  80 


Grand  total 
0 


$5,453  70 


There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  they  employed  any  clerk  other  than  one 
of  their  number,  Senator  F.  P.  Harkness.  Not  a single  measure  reported  by 


this  committee  ever  became  a law,  except  one  which  was  so  badly  mutilated 
that  its  authors  could  not  recognize  it. 

As  a comparison  of  economy  between  the  two  houses,  we  submit  the  fact 
that  the  Senate,  with  40  members,  had  118  employes  on  its  pay-roll,  while  the 
House,  with  a membership  of  125,  had  only  82,  making  a difference  of  $129 
per  day  in  the  cost  of  running  the  two  houses. 

In  closing,  we  can  safely  say,  in  refutation  of  the  charges  made  by  our  po- 


litical enemies,  and  given  such  wide  circulation,  that  we  did  not  consider  or 
pass  a single  bill  that  could  in  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  disturb  the  re- 
lation of  debtor  and  creditor,  or  jeopardize  the  collection  of  debts,  or  to  re- 


pudiate any  honest  obligation;  and  with  this  brief  and  careful  summary  of 
only  a few  of  the  important  measures  considered  and  passed  by  the  People’s 
House  of  Representatives  during  the  thirtieth  session  of  the  Kansas  Legisla- 
ture, with  the  action  taken  thereon  by  the  Republican  Senate,  we  know  that 
we  can  safely  say  to  every  business  interest  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  that  we 
have  tried  to  carefully  guard  and  protect  the  same  in  the  interests  of  the  peo- 
ple of  our  State,  and  that  they  will  not  fail  to  see  how  unfortunate  it  was,  and 
in  future  will  be,  to  have  a Republican  Senate,  whose  only  business  object  was 
to  obstruct  honest  legislation  in  the  interest  of  the  people  of  this  State,  and 
to  checkmate  the  action  of  the  people’s  chosen  representatives,  and  we  com- 


24 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


mend  this  review  to  the  honest  consideration  of  onr  people  and  a candid 
world. 

The  above  address  is  signed  by  — 

P.  P.  Eldeb,  Speaker  of  the  House . 

Wm.  Rogebs,  Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means. 

J.  S.  Doolittle,  Chairman  Committee  on  Judiciary. 

David  Shull,  Chairman  Committee  on  Legislative  Apportionment. 
Wm.  M.  Campbell,  Chairman  Committee  on  Railroads . 

A.  A.  Newman,  Chairman  Committee  on  Municipal  Corporations. 

C.  R.  Cleveland,  Chairman  Committee  on  Engrossed  Bills. 

M.  W.  Cobun,  Chairman  Committee  on  Federal  Relations. 

W.  Doty,  Chairman  Committee  on  Banks  and  Banking. 

Levi  Dumbauld,  Chairman  Committee  on  Elections . 

A.  H.  Lupfeb,  Chairman  Committee  on  Education . 

John  Bbyden,  Chairman  Committee  on  Live  Stock. 


Concerning  the  work  of  the  Senate  Revision  Committee,  referred  to  above, 
Colonel  S.  N.  Wood  said,  in  “Wood’s  Manifesto,”  p.  9: 

“I  have  read  the  editorial  in  the  El  Dorado  Republican  as  to  the  disposition 
of  the  bills  reported  by  this  ‘Revision  Committee,’  and  find  that  bill  No.  1,  An 
act  in  relation  to  State  officers,  etc.,  passed  the  Senate,  was  sent  to  the  House, 
and  March  6th  the  Senate  recalled  it,  and,  of  course,  strangled  the  little  infant. 

“Bill  No.  2 was  an  act  to  establish  the  salaries  of  the  officers  of  both  houses. 

“Bill  No.  3,  providing  for  a State  Board  of  Public  Works,  passed  both 
houses. 

“Bill  No.  14,  providing  for  a Fish  Commissioner,  passed  the  Senate.  It 
was  killed  in  the  House,  and  this  expense  was  saved  to  the  State. 

“Bill  No.  16,  State  Agent  at  Washington  on  a large  salary,  passed  the  Sen 
ate,  was  killed  in  the  House,  and  this  expense  saved  to  the  State. 

“Bill  No.  20  was  the  county  officers’  bill,  already  alluded  to,  and  died  in  the 
Senate.  [Died  in  hands  of  Conference  Committee;  Senate  Jour.  p.  726,  and 
House  Jour.  p.  990.] 

“Bills  Nos.  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  11,  12,  13,  15,  17,  18,  19,  21,  22,  23,  24  and  25  never 
reached  the  House,  and  died  in  the  Senate  in  the  arms  of  their  godfather,  the 
‘Senate  Revision  Committee;’  and  thus  ended  the  Senate  revision  farce.” 

[If  our  space  would  permit,  we  would  like  to  include  all  of  “Wood’s  Mani- 
festo,” and  we  now  recommend  everyone  to  get  a copy  as  a companion  to 
this  volume.] 


ROGERS'S  LETTER. 


25 


[Published  in  Leavenworth  Times,  April  12,  1891.] 

BUCHAN  ANSWERED. 

The  Wyandotte  Manipulator  shown  up  in  Detail. — Mr.  Rogers,  Chairman  of  the  House  Ways 
and  Means  Committee,  Issues  a Strong  Document.^Points  of  Vital  Interest  to  the  People  of 
Kansas. — The  Wily  Senator’s  Memory  Seems  to  be  Poor. — Notes. 

To  Senator  W,  J.  Buchan:  My  attention  has  been  called  to  a four-colnmn 
statement  published  in  the  Topeka  Capital  of  April  5th,  signed  by  William 
J.  Buchan,  chairman  of  the  Senate  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  in  which  there 
are  so  many  misstatements  that  I feel  compelled  to  correct  some  of  them. 

So  far  as  the  speech  of  Speaker  Elder  was  concerned,  I do  not  know  as  that 
gentleman  needs  any  defense  at  my  hands  from  the  attacks  of  a man  of  the 
known  standing  of  Senator  Buchan,  especially  when  that  eminent  Republican 
authority  deliberately  falsifies  the  records  of  both  Senate  and  House  regard- 
ing the  appropriations  of  1891;  and,  therefore,  I shall  pay  no  attention  to  that 
part  of  the  Senator’s  essay. 

As  to  the  glory  which  can  be  won  to  either  house  over  the  introduction  of 
bills,  it  is  hard  to  see  where  it  comes  in,  as  a duplicate  set  was  prepared  by  the 
State  Board  of  Charities  and  the  officers  of  the  various  institutions,  and  sub- 
mitted to  members  of  both  houses;  and  the  long  list  of  bills  prepared  by  Sen- 
ator Buchan  and  his  committee,  and  introduced  with  a flourish  of  trumpets  on 
the  eighteenth  day  of  the  session,  were  simply  duplicates  of  a series  of  bills 
introduced  by  myself  in  the  House  on  thatenth  day  of  the  session,  and  re- 
ferred the  next  day  to  the  House  CommitteeW  Ways  and  Means.  (See  House 
Journal,  January  28  and  24.)  I certainly  claimed  no  glory  for  having  received 
these  bills  from  the  hands  of  the  eminent  army  of  appropriation-seekers,  and 
introducing  them,  but  if  the  House  committee  had  reported  those  bills  back 
exactly  as  prepared,  except  to  reduce  the  salary  of  one  official  who  had  refused 
to  pay  a political  assessment  last  fall,  the  people  of  Kansas  would  have  been 
justified  in  denouncing  that  committee  as  being  either  incompetent  or  corrupt, 
especially  if  it  had  neglected  to  visit  a single  State  institution,  or  inquire  into 
its  necessities.  Yet  this  is  precisely  what  Senator  Buchan’s  committee  did,  as 
I find  by  comparing  the  Senate  committee  record  with  a memorandum  sub- 
mitted by  the  State  Board  of  Charities  at  the  beginning  of  the  session. 

That  there  was  a joint  meeting  of  the  two  committees  arranged  for  about 
the  fifteenth  day  of  the  session,  is  true,  and  the  failure  of  that  meeting  lies 
as  much  with  Senators  as  Representatives.  Later,  the  House  committee  asked 
for  a joint  investigation  of  the  possibility  of  converting  the  Hutchinson  Re- 
formatory into  an  insane  asylum,  but  never  even  received  the  courtesy  of  an 
answer,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  communication  was  delivered  personally 


26 


POPULIST  BAND-BOOK. 


to  Senator  Buchan,  and  the  question  was  one  deserving  of  the  most  careful 
consideration  at  the  hands  of  every  member  of  both  committees. 

While  the  Senator  is  in  error  as  to  the  number  of  House  appropriation  bills 
which  passed,  I have  no  desire  to  quarrel  with  him  over  the  matter.  The 
House  committee  took  up  Senate  bills  simply  to  save  time,  and  in  most  cases 
used  their  own  perfected  bills  as  amendments,  and  from  the  amount  of  bad 
language  used  by  the  Senator  about  the  matter,  it  is  evident  that  he  at  least 
discovered  that  the  beautifully  type-written  bills  which  had  been  prepared  at 
various  places  in  the  State,  while  he  and  his  colleagues  were  sweating  blood 
over  their  perfection,  had  been  through  the  hands  of  that  “ ignorant  ” lot  of 
grangers  at  the  other  end  of  the  capitol.  The  Senator  is  not  wise  in  his  refer- 
ence to  the  miscellaneous  bill,  and  is  unkind  to  his  party  friends.  The  terri- 
ble array  of  room  rents,  which  he  so  bitterly  complains  of,  was  all  arranged 
for  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  his  figures  and  vouchers  were  accepted  by 
the  House  committee.  It  is  my  understanding  now,  that  two  of  those  rooms 
were  occupied  as  sleeping  apartments,  one  by  an  Alliance  employe,  and  one 
by  a Republican  member  ; but  if  I had  known  at  the  time  that  the  Republican 
Secretary  of  State  was  certifying  such  bills,  I should  certainly  have  hunted  up 
the  Senator  and  assisted  him  all  in  my  power  in  his  efforts  to  prevent  the  un- 
fair expenditure  of  that  $34.25.  The  Senator  may  recollect  that  several  items 
were  added  to  that  bill  which  were  not  even  suggested  by  the  House.  The 
little  item  of  $10,000  to  Cliff.  Baker  so  as  to  round  out  his  biennial  appropria- 
tion to  $220,490.36,  an  excess  of  over  $67,000  of  the  amount  allowed  for  State 
printing  for  the  next  two  years,  was  put  on  by  the  Senate  and  forced  through. 
Also,  such  little  matters  as  paving  bills  in  the  home  city  of  the  Senator,  and 
other  items,  which  nearly  doubled  the  amount  of  the, bill  submitted  by  the 
House. 

The  Senator  is  not  so  accurate  in  his  figures,  eitherras  would  naturally  be 
expected  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee  which  he  tells  us  devoted  so  much 
time  and  attention  to  the  financial  affairs  of  Kansas.  He  prints  a little  table 
which  he  says  shows  the  various  amounts  appropriated  by  the  Senate.  For 
the  purpose  of  an  easy  comparison,  I repeat  it,  as  follows: 


For  what  purpose.  1892.  1893. 

State  Horticultural  Society §1,235  00  §1,235  00 

State  Agricultural  College 17,350  00  9,300  00 

Conveying  prisoners  to  penitentiary 13,000  00  13,000  00 

State  Normal  School 17,700  00  13,175  00 

Institution  for  the  Education  of  the  Deaf  and  Dumb 44,000  00  44,000  00 

Institution  for  the  Idiotic  and  Imbecile 19,570  00  19,570  00 

State  Reform  School 38,500  00  38,500  00 

Soldiers’  Orphans’  Home 20,000  00  20,000  00 

Institution  tor  the  Education  of  the  Blind 19,200  00  19,200  00 

Industrial  School  for  Girls 17,500  00  17,500  00 

Salary  of  State  Board  of  Charities 6,500  00  6,500  00 

State  Insane  Asylum,  Topeka 120,000  00  120,000  00 


ROGERS'S  LETTER. 


27 


For  what  purpose.  * 1892.  1893. 

State  Insane  Asylum,  Osawatomie 87,850  00  87,850  00 

State  Penitentiary 163,878  78  138,425  00 

Regents  of  Normal  School,  Agr.  Col.,  and  Penitentiary  directors, 4,900  00  4,900  00 

Destitute  insane 30,000  00  30,000  00 

Executive  and  judiciary 284,860  00  281,310  50 


Total $911,043  78  $864,465  50 


There  Must  Have  Been  a Mistake. — It  is  possible  that,  in  the  long,  dark 
passage  between  the  Senate  and  the  House,  Colonel  Stacey,  the  eminent  Re- 
publican Secretary  of  the  Senate,  may  have  changed  some  of  the  bills  while  he 
was  carrying  over  his  messages;  but  as  I can  see  no  good  reason  why  he  should 
do  so,  I am  constrained  to  believe  that  the  Senator  has  made  a mistake  some- 
what— a mistake  almost  as  serious  as  he  made  in  the  national  water-works 
bill,  or  the  road-certificate  refunding  bill.  When  these  bills  reached  the 
House,  the  following  was  the  condition  of  them — I consolidate  the  two  years 
for  convenience: 


State  Horticultural  Society $2,670  00 

State  Agricultural  College 36,677  64 

Conveying  prisoners 30,000  00 

State  Normal  School .• 31,675  00 

Institution  for  the  Education  of  the  Deaf  and  Dumb 87,400  00 

Idiotic  and  Imbecile  Youths’  Asylum 41,140  00 

State  Reform  School 77,000  00 

Soldiers’  Orphans’  Home 40,400  00 

Institution  for  the  Education  of  the  Blind 38,400  00 

Industrial  School  for  Girls 34,600  00 

State  Board  of  Charitable  Institutions 13,000  00 

Topeka  Insane  Asylum 239,200  00 

Osawatomie  Insane  Asylum 174,900  00 

State  Penitentiary 378,463  78 

Regents  and  Directors 20,673  42 

Destitute  insane..  .A 30,000  00 

Executive  and  judicial 635,462  51 


Total 


$1,911,662  35 


How  the  Bills  Grew. — The  careful  mathematician  will  notice  that  some- 
where between  the  eagle  eye  of  Senator  Buchan  and  the  House  Ways-and- 
Means-Committee  room  these  bills  had  grown  $136,153.07.  The  truly-good 
Colonel  Stacey  could  not  have  stuffed  all  of  the^  bills,  and  a look  over  the  list 
shows  that  he  got  in  his  work  on  the  Penitentiary  bill,  unless  the  Senator  is 
mistaken,  and  it  really  leaves  me  in  a quandary  as  to  which  is  true — Senator 
Buchan  mistaken  or  Colonel  Stacey  corrupt.  The  Senator  says  the  Senate 
passed  the  bill  at  $302,303.78,  and  it  arrived  at  the  Houseswelled  to  $378,- 
463.78.  If  Colonel  Stacey  was  really  trying  to  stuff  thatbill,  I cannot  account 
for  his  leaving  that  78  cents  unchanged.  As  the  bill  passed  at  $329,580.78,  it 
would  look  to  an  ordinary  farmer  as  though  there  was  an  actual  reduction  of 
$48,883  for  the  next  two  years,  instead  of  an  increase  of  $20,000,  as  incident- 
ally stated  by  the  Senator.  If  we  add  the  earnings  of  the  numerous  convicts 


28 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


now  employed  as  waiters,  cooks,  etc.,  at  State  free  hotel,  the  decrease  of  ex- 
pense is  many  hundreds  of  dollars  more. 

The  Senator  is  a trifle  mistaken  as  to  the  Osawatomie  Insane  Asylum.  The 
House  attempted  to  even  up  salaries  between  the  two  asylums,  and  succeeded, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  it  affected  a few  political  farmers  in  Topeka.  Then, 
as  the  Senate  committee  had  declined  to  join  us  in  an  attempt  to  care  for  the 
large  number  of  destitute  insane,  the  House  committee  took  Dr.  Knapp  into 
council,  and  proceeded  to  prepare  a bill  to  erect  a new  building  to  provide  for 
300  more  inmates.  That  appropriation  was  $60,000;  in  addition,  we  appropri- 
ated $53,000  to  care  for  the  insane  received  there  after  January  1,  1892.  We 
believed  this  a humane  and  necessary  appropriation,  and  we  thank  the  Sena- 
tor for  allowing  it  to  pass  without  change. 

The  most  remarkable  statement  in  the  Senator’s  essay  is  his  table  of  defi- 
ciencies. To  an  ordinary  man,  who  has  not  devoted  his  life  to  intricate  calcu- 
lations, it  would  seem  that  when  a law  is  passed  to  pay  somebody,  or  something, 
a specified  amount,  and  no  appropriation  was  made  to  pay  it,  that  when  the 
appropriation  was  called  for  at  a later  date,  that  appropriation  would  be  for 
a deficiency.  Hence,  to  the  ordinary  man,  who  does  not  have  enough  ability 
to  run  the  finances  of  Kansas,  manage  the  great  Republican  party,  and  elect 
a Senator  against  the  will  of  the  people,  all  at  once,  it  may  seem  plausible  that 
the  following  amounts  are  really  deficiencies: 


State  Printer 180,000  00 

Industrial  School  for  Girls 10,000  00 

Regents,  Trustees,  etc 25,930  00 

Sheriffs  (conveying  prisoners) 24,000  00 

Publishing  joint  resolutions , 19,255  00 

Judges’  pay  (1889).... 5,000  00 

Soldiers’  Home 6,375  00 

Care  of  destitute  insane 75,000  00 

State  Agent 16,710  98 

Sugar  bounties 53,304  08 

State  Veterinarian 7 6,725  00 

Old  gas  bills 1,242  00 

Stationery  for  1889 1,161  50 

Secretary  of  Senate,  1889 471  00 

Metropolitan  police 20,000  00 

State  Library ... 4,000  00 

Small  items  in  executive  bill 3,078  00 


Total $352,352  56 


It  is  very  probable  that  the  above  list  does  not  include  all  of  the  deficien- 
cies provided  for,  as  they  were  scattered  around  among  the  famous  collection 
of  Senate  bills  which  seem  to  have  been  so  carefully  prepared  that  even  the 
noted  chairman  of  the  Senate  Ways  and  Means  Committee  did  not  know  what 
he  was  passing  ; but  as  it  only  shows  a trifling  error  of  $181,836.57  on  the 
part  of  Senator  Buchan,  we  will  let  it  pass. 

The  Appropriation  Bills. — The  Senator  is  not  to  blame  for  the  great 


ROGERS'S  LETTER. 


29 


stress  he  puts  upon  these  eighteen  appropriation  bills.  He  forgot  to  men- 
tion the  fact  that  his  committee  passed  another  list  of  bills,  and  that  they 
too  passed  the  Senate  and  were  taken  by  Colonel  Stacey  over  to  the  House 
with  a request  that  they  be  enacted  into  laws.  Among  these  were  bills  to 
provide  for  buildings  at  Topeka,  at  Winfield,  at  Atchison,  and  at  various 
other  points,  and  after  one  of  those  cold,  careful  examinations  of  the  needs 
of  the  State  institutions  for  which  the  Senator’s  wonderful  committee  has 
become  so  famous,  the  Republican  end  of  the  Legislature  proceeded  to  ap- 
propriate something  like  $800,000  which  the  Senator  seems  to  have  forgot- 
ten about.  Those  bills  camo  over  and  fell  among  the  hayseeds,  and  while  no 
adequate  provision  was  made  for  the  insane,  it  was  discovered  that  all  the 
contractors  were  provided  with  fat  jobs. 

Senator,  I regret  to  say  it,  but  at  one  time  the  House  WTays  and  Means 
Committee  had  thirty-nine  of  your  bills  in  its  possession  which  appropriated 
$2,704,016.24,  and  which  did  not  cover  the  necessary  appropriations  by  half 
a million  dollars.  While  you  were  talking  about  the  eighteen  bills  which 
the  ignorant  hayseeds  bungled  so  terribly,  why  did  you  not  review  the  other 
twenty-one? 

The  House  is  willing  to  submit  the  wages  paid  in  the  Topeka  Insane  Asy- 
lum schedule,  as  given  by  the  eminent  Senator  from  Wyandotte,  as  being 
high  enough,  and  really  too  high,  when  it  is  considered  that  necessary  living 
expenses  are  furnished  in  addition  to  those  salaries.  The  changes  made  by 
the  House  was  an  honest  attempt  to  equalize  salaries  between  the  two  asy- 
lums where  the  work  was  identically  the  same. 

The  Senator  ^plaintively  refers  to  the  number  of  small  appropriations  made 
by  the  Senate,  aggregating  $26,500,  for  necessary  additions  to  buildings.  Can 
it  be  that  the  wicked  Colonel  Stacey  stuffed  some  more  bills,  or  has  the  Senator 
lost  the  records  of  the  hard-working  body  of  which  he  is  such  a distinguished 
member?  Here  are  a few  of  the  ‘^trifling  amounts”  which  arrived  at  the 
House: 


Industrial  School  for  Girls 

State  Reform  School 

Idiotic  and  Imbecile  Youths’  Asylum 

Osawatomie  Insane  Asylum 

Institution  for  the  Education  of  the  Blind 

Soldiers’  Orphans’  Home 

State  Agricultural  College 

Institution  for  the  Education  of  the  Deaf  and  Dumb, 

State  Normal  School 

State  House 


$6,400  00 
28,617  00 
18,794  00 
24,175  00 
3,680  00 
54,350  00 
24,010  98 
9,500  00 
31,675  00 
278,000  00 


Total 


$479,201  98 


Some  of  these  were  allowed,  and  no  institution  was  left  to  suffer.  Even  the 
State  house  got  $60,000;  enough  to  complete  the  dome,  lay  floors,  build  steps, 
and  finish  ten  committee  rooms,  so  that  rents  can  be  hereafter  saved. 


30 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


Enormous  Misstatements. — If  the  Senator  will  look  carefully  at  his  state- 
ment that  the  $26,194  24  deficiency  in  the  executive  appropriation  is  for  the 
pay  of  officers  created  two  years  ago,  he  may  blush  at  the  enormity  of  his 
misstatements.  It  is  not  true,  as  over  $6,000  was  for  the  State  Veterinarian, 
$20,000  for  the  police  commissioners,  while  the  Fish  Commissioner  and  the 
State  Librarian  both  came  in  that  bill.  It  would  have  been  better  to  have 
attempted  accuracy  somewhere  than  to  make  continuous  blunders,  even  if 
the  Topeka  Capital  was  ready  with  an  indorsement  of  the  manifesto  before 
its  delivery. 

The  exceeding  grace  with  which  the  Senator  explains  certain  other  financial 
matters  is  only  exceeded  by  his  statement  of  the  annual  tax  levies  since  1867, 
in  which  he  shows  his  inability  to  comprehend  what  the  actual  levy  has  been 
in  years  gone  by.  See  your  tax  receipts  each  year  since  1867.  He  also  insin- 
uates that  the  present  assessment  of  the  State  is  the  highest  in  its  history, 
when  it  is  a known  fact  that  our  assessment  is  decreasing,  and  that  the  House 
consented  to  a levy  of  one-tenth  of  a mill  higher  than  would  be  necessary  if 
it  was  not  very  probable  that  the  assessment  of  1893  will  be  much  less  than 
the  present  one.  All  of  the  things  which  seem  to  have  escaped  the  eagle  eye 
of  the  Senator  would  fill  a book,  and  I have  not  time  to  review  them. 

When  the  People’s  Party  last  fall  charged  extravagance  and  mismanage- 
ment upon  the  Republicans  of  Kansas,  it  made  no  charges  which  have  not 
f'been  proven.  Taking  the  Senator’s  own  footings  as  true,  and  we  have  the 
legitimate  expenses  of  the  last  biennial  period  swelled  to  the  sum  of  $3,000,- 
000,  including  the  deficiencies,  while  the  “extravagant”  action  of  the  present 
House  has  cut  them  down  to  a trifle  over  $2,000,000  after  deducting  the  defi- 
ciencies. These  are  things  so  plain  that  he  who  runs  may  read  and  make  no 
mistake. 

So  far  as  the  World’s  Fair  bill  was  concerned,  the  Senator  knows  that  the 
body  of  which  he  is  a member  never  passed  one  until  so  late  in  the  session 
that  not  a quorum  remained  in  the  House.  There  was  always  connected  with 
the  Senate  bill  a rider  which  created  a new  State  office,  as  well  as  a World’s 
Fair  Commission.  It  was  a bill  in, which  the  amount  to  be  appropriated  was 
never  questioned  in  either  house,  but  in  which  Senate  statesmen  attempted  to 
create  a new  permanent  political  office  at  the  risk  of  a failure  of  the  appro- 
priation. If  anybody  is  responsible  for  the  failure  of  that  bill,  it  was  not  the 
House,  because  that  body  never  attempted  to  make  a political  measure  out  of 
the  bill  until  the  issue  had  been  forced  by  the  Senate. 

In  closing,  I wish  to  ask  the  Senator  what  was  done  by  the  Senate  to  work 
reforms  in  this  State?  Your  party  promised  railroad  legislation.  Did  you 
make  any  effort  to  get  any?  If  not,  why  not?  Did  you  ever  read  the  plat- 
form of  your  party  of  1890?  Why  did  you  refuse  to  even  consider  any  of 


THE  RAILROAD  BILL. 


31 


the  promises  therein  made?  Possibly  you  may  imagine  that  the  mere  fact 
that  the  Senate  backed  its  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in  an  attempt  to  meet 
every  demand  for  an  appropriation,  is  a sufficient  record  for  such  a party  as 
you  represent.  If  that  is  the  case,  I simply  ask  you  to  content  your  soul  in 
patience  and  wait  the  verdict  of  the  voters  of  Kansas  in  1892. 

Wm.  Rogebs, 

Chairman  of  House  Ways  and  Means  Committee. 


THE  RAILROAD  BILL. 

House  bill  No.  743  was  the  objective  point  of  much  discussion  during  the 
past  winter,  and  will  be  an  issue  in  the  coming  campaigns,  and  have  great 
weight  in  determining  the  value  of  the  services  of  the  People’s  Representa- 
tives; accordingly  we  here  present  the  bill  in  full,  together  with  comparative 
tables  illustrative  of  the  changes  it  would  have  produced  if  it  had  become  a 
law: 

An  Act  to  regulate  and  establish  reasonable  maximum  charges  for  the  transportation  of  freight 
on  the  different  lines  of  railroad  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  providing  for  a State  Board  of 
Railroad  Commissioners,  with  general  powers  of  superivsion  over  the  transportation  lines 
within  the  State,  and  giving  to  such  commissioners  full  power  and  authority  to  control,  fix 
and  regulate  the  charges  and  rates  to  be  collected  by  railroad  and  transportation  lines  for 
carrying  freight  over  such  roads  and  lines  in  Kansas,  aijdsto  prevent  unjust  and  unreason- 
able discriminations  in  such  charges,  and  providing  for  thA  selection  of  such  commission- 
ers, and  the  manner  in  which  they  shall  be  chosen,  and  prescribing  their  compensation  and 
duties,  and  making  appropriations  to  enforce  this  act. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Kansas: 

Section  1.  That  all  railroad  corporations  or  companies  organized  under  the 
laws  of  Kansas,  or  doing  business  within  the  State,  their  trustees,  receivers, 
lessees,  or  managing  agents  or  officers,  shall  be  limited  in  their  maximum 
charges  to  the  rates  of  transportation  which  are  provided  for  in  this  act,~or 
fixed  by  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  herein  provided  for.  No  rail- 
road or  transportation  company  or  corporation  shall  charge,  accept,  or  re- 
ceive any  greater  rate  for  the  transportation  of  freight  from  any  point  within 
this  State  to  any  point  within  this  State  than  permitted  or  allowed  under  the 
provisions  and  authority  of  this  act.  All  railroads  in  this  State  shall  be  classi- 
fied according  to  the  respective  annual  earnings  of  the  said  several  roads  — 
according  to  the  amount  of  their  annual  earnings  within  the  State  — for  the 
preceding  year,  as  follows:  Class  A shall  include  all  railroads  whose  gross  an- 
nual earnings  shall  be  four  thousand  dollars  or  more  per  mile;  class  B shall 
include  all  railroads  whose  gross  annual  earnings  shall  be  three  thousand  dol- 
lars per  mile  and  less  than  four  thousand  dollars  per  mile;  class  C shall  include 


82 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


all  railroads  whose  gross  annual  earnings  shall  be  less  than  three  thousand 
dollars  per  mile. 

Seo.  2.  All  railroads,  corporations  or  companies  shall  be  limited  according 
to  their  classification  to  compensation  to  the  amount  fixed  herein  or  estab- 
lished by  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  created  by  this  act,  and  it  shall 
be  unlawful  for  any  railroad  corporation,  company,  association,  individual  or 
carrier  engaged  in  the  transportation  of  freight  to  charge,  accept  or  receive 
a greater  rate  for  the  transportation  of  property  than  provided  for  in  this 
act,  or  established  and  fixed  by  the  said  commissioners  under  the  authority 
hereby  conferred  upon  the  said  commission. 

Sec.  3.  The  office  of  each  of  the  present  commissioners  of  the  Board  of 
Railroad  Commissioners  of  this  State  shall  expire  on  the  first  day  of  April, 
1891,  and  to  fill  the  same  the  Executive  Council  shall,  before  the  first  day  of 
April  next,  elect  a competent  person,  who  shall  be  a member  of  said  board, 
and  hold  his  office  until  the  second  Monday  in  January,  1892;  the  Senate  of 
the  State  shall,  before  April  1,  1891,  also  elect  a competent  person,  who  shall 
be  a member  of  said  board,  and  hold  his  office  until  the  second  Monday  in 
January,  1892;  and  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  shall,  before 
April  next,  also  elect  a competent  person,  who  shall  be  a member  of  said 
board,  and  shall  hold  his  office  until  the  second  Monday  of  January,  1892.  At 
the  general  election  in  November,  1891,  there  shall  be  elected  three  commis- 
sioners, who,  after  the  second  Monday  in  January,  1892,  shall  constitute  the 
Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  of  this  State  and  shall  serve  official  terms 
as  follows,  to  wit:  One  for  three  years,  one  for  two  years,  and  one  for  one  year, 
respectively,  from  the  second  Monday  in  January,  1892,  and  that  at  the  gen- 
eral election  every  year  thereafter  there  shall  be  elected  a commissioner,  who 
shall  be  a member  of  said  board,  and  shall  serve  for  the  term  of  three  years 
from  the  second  Monday  in  January  next  succeeding  his  election,  and  in  case 
any  vacancy  occurs  in  said  board  at  any  time,  not  hereby  provided  for,  the 
Governor  shall  appoint  a competent  person  to  serve  until  the  next  general 
election  and  qualification  of  his  successor.  The  said  Board  of  Commissioners 
shall  have  power  to  appoint  a secretary,  and  remove  him  at  pleasure.  No 
person  owning  any  bonds,  stock  or  property  in  any  railroad  company,  or  who 
is  in  the  employment,  or  who  is  in  any  way  or  manner  pecuniarily  interested 
in  any  railroad,  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  railroad  commissioner  or  sec- 
retary of  said  board.  Said  railroad  commissioners  and  secretary  shall  be 
qualified  electors  of  the  State,  and  shall  be  sworn  to  the  due  and  faithful  per- 
formance of  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices  before  entering  upon  the  dis- 
charge of  the  same.  Each  of  said  commissioners  shall  enter  into  bonds,  with 
security  to  be  approved  by  the  Executive  Council,  in  the  sum  of  $10,000,  con- 
ditioned for  the  faithful  performance  of  his  duties. 


THE  RAILROAD  BILL . 33 

Seo.  4.  Said  commissioners  shall  keep  their  office  in  the  State  house,  and 
they  or  either  of  them  may  act  officially  in  any  part  of  the  State.  They 
shall  receive  a salary  of  three  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  and  the  secretary 
shall  receive  a salary  of  one  thousand  five  hundred  dollars  per  annum,  to  be 
paid  as  the  salaries  of  other  State  officers  are  paid;  and  the  said  board  shall 
be  provided,  at  the  expense  of  the  State,  with  necessary  office  furniture  and 
stationery. 

Seo.  5.  For  the  purpose  of  this  act  the  State  of  Kansas  is  divided  into  three 
districts.  The  first  district  shall  consist  of  the  counties  of  Nemaha,  Jackson, 
Shawnee,  Osage,  Coffey,  Woodson,  Wilson,  Montgomery,  and  the  counties  ly- 
ing east  thereof.  The  second  district  shall  consist  of  all  counties  west  of  said 
named  counties  to  and  including  the  counties  of  Smith,  Osborne,  Russell,  Bar- 
ton, Stafford,  Pratt,  and  Barber.  The  third  district  shall  include  and  em- 
brace all  counties  west  of  said  second  district.  One  of  said  commissioners 
shall  reside  in  each  of  the  said  districts,  but  shall  be  elected  by  the  electors  of 
the  entire  State. 

Seo.  6.  The  tariff  of  rates  established  in  the  schedules  set  forth  in  this  act 
shall  be  considered  the  basis  on  which  to  compare  the  compensation  for  the 
transportation  of  merchandise,  freight,  goods  or  property  over  any  line  of 
road  in  this  State,  unless  the  same  shall  be  found  by  said  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners  to  be  unreasonable  or  unjust,  excessive  or  too  low,  and  shall 
go  into  effect  and  be  in  force  on  the  first  day  of  July,  A.  D.  1891.  Immediately 
after  the  appointment  of  said  commissioners  they  shall  cause  to  be  served  upon 
each  company,  corporation,  transportation  or  railroad  company  or  carrier  en- 
gaged in  business  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  a copy  of  the  rates  established  by 
this  act  as  a basis  of  maximum  charges,  and  notify  the  said  company  in 
writing  of  the  same  by  serving  a copy  thereof  on  its  managing  agent  in  this 
State,  or  other  principal  officer,  and  shall  also  notify  said  company  that  it 
will  at  a time  and  place  to  be  fixed  in  said  notice,  prior  to  May,  1891,  proceed 
to  classify  its  said  road,  and  will  hear  and  determine  any  complaint,  if  any 
it  make,  against  the  enforcement  of  the  rates  provided  for  in  the  schedule  of 
rates  established  as  a basis  of  rates  by  this  act,  and  requiring  the  said  com- 
pany to  appear  before  it  and  show  cause,  if  any  it  may  have,  why  the  said 
prescribed  rates  of  maximum  charges  should  not  be  put  in  force  as  to  its 
business. 

Seo.  7.  Any  railroad  company,  upon  whom  said  notice  provided  for  in  sec- 
tion 6 hereof  is  served,  may  appear  before  said  commission  at  the  time  and 
place  fixed  in  said  notice  given  by  said  commissioner,  by  its  agent  or  attor- 
ney, and  show  cause,  if  any,  why  the  said  maximum  charges  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  property  herein  provided  for  should  not  be  enforced  against  its 
road,  as  likewise  may  any  transportation  company  referred  to  in  this  act; 


34 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  commissioners  to  hear  and  determine  all 
objections  thereto,  and  if  found  by  them  to  be  unreasonable,  unjust,  too  high 
or  too  low,  the  same  shall  be  by  them  so  adjusted  and  fixed  as  to  be  reason- 
able and  just.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Attorney  General  to  also  appear 
before  said  commission  at  the  time  of  said  hearing,  of  which  time  said  com- 
mission shall  give  him  notice,  and  resist  any  increase  therein  on  behalf  of  the 
people  of  the  State,  and  the  said  commission  shall  have  full  power  and  au- 
thority to  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses  before  it  on  behalf  of  either 
party  and  the  production  of  papers  and  documents  sufficient  to  enable  it  to 
determine  the  matter  according  to  the  right  thereof  ; and  if  any  railroad  com- 
pany, after  being  served  with  process  of  the  said  commission,  shall  fail  to 
produce  any  paper,  record,  document  or  other  instrument  in  writing  required 
of  it,  or  its  officers  or  agents,  shall  fail  to  answer  or  report  any  matter  re- 
quired by  said  commissioners  to  be  disclosed  to  enable  it  to  discharge  its  duty 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  the  said  company  or  association  shall  be 
deemed  to  be  in  contempt,  and  the  said  commission  may  punish  the  same  by 
establishing  a rate  of  transportation  not  more  than  ten  per  cent,  lower  than 
the  rate  provided  for  by  the  terms  of  this  act,  or  as  established  by  said  com- 
mission. 

Sec.  8.  The  said  commission  shall  be  continuously  in  session  at  the  capital 
of  the  State,  or  at  such  other  place  as  it  may,  upon  ten  days’  published  notice 
in  some  newspaper  published  at  the  point  designated  for  meeting,  and  shall 
have  full  power,  upon  due  notice  to  any  company  referred  to  in  this  act,  and 
after  a hearing,  as  provided  for  in  this  act,  and  after  notice  to  the  Attorney 
General,  to  change  or  alter  any  rate  by  either  increasing  or  reducing  the 
same  so  as  to  make  the  rate  a just  and  reasonable  rate  for  the  transportation  of 
any  commodity  or  article;  and  when  it  shall  have  established  the  maximum  rate 
of  charges  which  any  company,  corporation  or  association  referred  to  in  this 
act  shall  charge  for  the  transportations  property  or  freight,  it  shall  cause 
notice  of  the  rate  so  established  to  be  served  on  the  company  affected  thereby, 
and  the  same  shall  be  the  maximum  rate  which  the  said  company  or  associa- 
tion shall  be  permitted  to  charge  for  the  transportation  of  freight  or  prop- 
erty over  its  line  of  road. 

Seo.  9.  If  any  transportation  company  in  the  State  of  Kansas  shall  fail  or 
refuse  to  observe  the  rate  prescribed  and  fixed  by  the  commission  or  the 
terms  of  this  act,  if  unaltered  by  said  commission,  and  refuse  to  put  the  same 
in  force  upon  its  line  of  road,  or  shall  charge  any  greater  or  higher  rate,  the 
said  company  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a misdemeanor,  and  shall  be  liable  to 
a fine  of  not  less  than  five  thousand  dollars  nor  more  than  ten  thousand  dol- 
lars for  each  and  every  violation  thereof,  to  be  sued  for  and  recovered  in  any 
district  court  in  this  State  for  the  use  of  the  school  fund  of  the  State;  and 


THE  RAILROAD  BILL. 


35 


the  said  judgment,  if  unpaid  for  thirty  days  after  the  final  rendition  thereof, 
shall  work  a forfeiture  of  the  charter  of  the  said  company  and  its  right  to  do 
business  in  this  State. 

Sec.  10.  If  any  company  or  association  referred  to  in  this  act  shall  fail  to 
comply  with  the  rates  established  as  herein  provided  for,  after  being  notified 
thereof,  for  a longer  period  than  ten  days,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Attorney 
General  of  the  State  to  apply  at  once,  upon  being  notified  thereof  by  any  per- 
son, to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  for  a writ  of  mandamus,  in  the  name 
of  the  State  of  Kansas  as  plaintiff,  to  compel  the  said  company  to  put  in 
force  the  said  rate  so  established;  and  if  the  said  company  shall  fail  or  neg- 
lect to  obey  any  peremptory  writ  of  mandamus  issued  by  said  court  on  such 
proceedings,  the  company,  or  association,  or  person  so  offending,  shall  be 
punished  as  for  contempt  by  a fine  of  not  less  than  five  thousand  dollars  per 
day  for  each  and  every  day  it  persists  in  such  refusal;  and  judgment  shall  be 
entered  therefor  upon  proof  of  such  contempt  by  said  court,  and  the  said  fine, 
when  collected,  shall  be  paid  into  the  school  fund  of  the  State,  as  other  fines; 
and  in  addition  thereto  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  court  to  appoint  a re- 
ceiver for  the  said  road  to  take  charge  thereof,  and  operate  the  same  in  con- 
formity with  the  said  maximum  rate  so  established,  until  the  company  so 
offending  shall  enter  into  a good  and  sufficient  bond,  in  such  sum  as  the  court 
may  fix,  to  observe  and  comply  with  the  requirements  of  this  act,  and  the 
rate  so  established.  In  addition  to  the  said  judgments  hereinbefore  in  this 
act  provided  for,  the  said  courts  shall  enter  against  sahfccompanies  or  associ- 
ation referred  to  in  this  act,  a judgment  for  all  costs^ incurred,  including  an 
attorney’s  fee  of  one  hundred  dollars  per  day  to  the  Attorney  General,  or  other 
assistant  counsel  by  him  employed,  for  each  day  engaged  in  the  enforcement 
of  this  act  against  such  defaulting  company,  which  shall  be  taxed  as  part  of 
the  costs  in  the  case,  and  shall  be  in  lieu  of  all  other  compensation  to  such 
attorneys  for^  enforcing  this  act,  except  as  otherwise  provided  herein. 

Seo.  11.  The  said  board  of  commissioners  shall,  on  the  first  Tuesday  in  July 
in  each  year,  classify  the  railroads  and  transportation  companies  coming  un- 
der the  provisions  of  this  act,  classing  all  lines  of  roads  owned  or  operated  by 
any  one  company  according  to  the  average  earnings  per  mile  owned  or  oper- 
ated by  it  within  this  State,  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  rate  to  be  charged 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act;  and  at  the  said  time  any  such  company  may 
appear  before  said  commission  and  be  heard  on  the  question  of  the  classifi- 
cation of  such  company,  and  the  said  commission  shall  have  full  power  and 
authority  to  hear  evidence  on  the  said  matter  and  compel  the  production  of 
testimony  or  witnesses  as  it  may  deem  necessary  to  fully  determine  the  ques- 
tion of  such  classification  according  to  the  terms  of  this  act;  and  upon  said 
classification  being  made,  the  commission  shall  have  the  power  to  make  and 


86 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


establish  such  basis  of  rates  for  each  company  or  transportation  line  accord- 
ing to  its  classification  as  it  may  deem  just  and  reasonable:  Provided , The 
basis  of  rates  established  for  roads  of  any  one  class  shalFapply  to  all  other 
roads  belonging  to  such  class,  and  shall'be  so  established  as  to  give  to  each 
road  of  such  class  an  equal  rating  with  the  roads  of  such  class  upon  its  maxi- 
mum rate  of  charges.  Such  maximum  rates  established  by  the  said  commis- 
sion shall  be  so  adjusted  as  to  prevent^  and  prohibit  a greater  charge  being 
made  for~a  short  haul  than  a long  one;~and  where  any  point  to  which  freight 
shall  be  shipped  is  reached  by  two  lines  of  road,  one  longer  than  the  other,  but 
both  owned  or  operated  by  the  same  company,  the  rate  charged  for  transpor- 
tation shall  be  computed  as  for  the  shorter  distance,  by  which  the  freight 
might  have  been  transported. 

Seo.  12.  The  said  commissioners  shall  have  power  at  any  time,  upon  com- 
plaint made  to  them  in  writing  by  any  person  of  the  excessive  rate  by  them 
established,  or  may  without  such  complaint  if  they  shall  be  satisfied  that  any 
rate  by  them  established  or  in  force  under*  the  provisions  of  this  act,  or 
adopted  by  any  company,  is  unjust,  upon  ten  days’  notice  in  writing  to  the 
company  whose  rate  is  affected  thereby,  and  after  notice  to  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, proceed  to  investigate  the  reasonableness  of  the  rate  so  complained  of 
or  believed  to  be  unjust,  and  make  such  reduction  therein,  or  increase,  or 
other  change  therein  as  shall  seem  to  them  to  be  just  and  reasonable;  and  the 
order  by  them  made  shall  go  into  effect  at  such  time  as  they  may  fix,  not 
later  than  ten  days  after  the  establishment  thereof,  and  shall  be  the  rate  of 
maximum  charges  to  be  charged  by  said  company  under  the  provisions  of 
this  act,  subject  to  all  the  penalties  herein  provided  for;  and  its  adoption 
may  be  compelled  in  the  same  manner  as  provided  for  the  enforcement  of 
other  rates  under  this  act. 

Seo.  13.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  commission  to  prepare  such  ques- 
tions and  interrogatories  as  it  may  deem  necessary  to  enable  it  to  perform 
the  duties  prescribed  in  this  act,  and  submit  the  same  to  the  general  manag- 
ing officer  of  every  company  doing  business  in  this  State,  at  such  time  as  the 
said  commission  may  deem  proper;  and  every  such  company  or  its  agent  to 
whom  such  questions  or  interrogatories  are  propounded  shall,  under  oath  if 
required,  within  such  time  as  the  commission  shall  fix,  being  not  less  than  ten 
days,  answer  fully  and  completely  all  such  questions  as  may  be  propounded 
to  it  under  the  provisions  of  this  act;  and  if  any  such  company  or  its  agents 
shall  fail  to  answer  fully  any  interrogatory  to  it  or  them  propounded  within 
the  time  fixed,  the  Attorney  General  shall  apply,  at  the  request  of  said  com- 
mission, to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  or  any  judge  thereof,  for  a writ  of 
mandamus  to  compel  such  answer,  and  if  any  such  company  shall  fail  or  neg- 
lect to  obey  any  peremptory  writ  of  mandamus  issued  by  the  said  court  under 


THE  RAILROAD  BILL. 


37 


the  provisions  of  this  section,  the  company  shall  be  deemed  in  contempt,  and 
may  be  punished  as  for  contempt  in  the  manner  provided  in  section  10 
hereof. 

Seo.  14.  If  any  witness  or  other  person  served  with  any  subpena  or  other 
process  to  appear  before  said  commissioners,  or  to  produce  any  paper  or 
document  or  other  record,  shall  fail  to  obey  such  process  or  order,  he  shall  be 
deemed  guilty  of  contempt,  and  may  be  punished  as  a witness  in  the  district 
court  for  a like  contempt  by  said  commissioners,  until  a compliance  with  such 
order  is  made.  Witnesses  shall  receive  the  sum  of  five  cents  per  mile,  to  be 
paid  by  such  person  or  party,  or  out  of  the  appropriation  herein  provided 
for,  as  said  commission  shall  order:  Provided , No  such  fees  shall  be  payable 
in  advance,  nor  allowed  unless  the  said  commission  shall  so  order. 

Sec.  15.  The  following  schedule  of  rates  and  classification  of  freights  shall 
be  taken  and  held  to  be  the  classification  and  schedule  of  maximum  charges 
of  rates  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  until  the  same  shall  be  changed  by 
said  commission  as  provided  for  in  this  act: 


2 


38 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK, 


KANSAS  DISTANCE  SCHEDULE  OF  BEASONABLE  MAXIMUM 


Distance  in  miles. 

Merchandise , classes , in  cents 
and  fractional  hundredths 
of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 

Car-loads,  minimum  tveight  20 , 
and  fractional  hundredths  of  a 

1 

Fifth  class 

Class  B 

Class  C 

First  class 

M 

» 

O 

3 

2, 

» 

33 

/! 

Third  class 

i 

( 

i 

Fourth  class 

t 

i 

j 

fo 

rs> 

> 

i 

1 

i 

l 

5 and  under 

13 

11 

9 

7 

5 

5 

5 

4.50 

10  and  over 

5 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

6 

5.50 

4.75 

15  and  over 

10 

15 

13 

11 

9 

6.50 

6.50 

5.75 

5 

20  and  over 

15 

16 

13.50 

11.50 

9.50 

7 

7 

6 

5 

.10 

25  and  over 

20 

17 

14 

12 

10 

7.50 

7.25 

6.25 

5.25 

30  and  over 

25 

18 

14.50 

12.50 

10.25 

8 

7.50 

6.40 

5.50 

35  and  over 

30 

19 

15 

13 

10.50 

8.50 

7.75 

6.50 

5.75 

40  and  over 

35 

20 

15.50 

13.50 

11 

9 

8 

7 

6 

45  and  over 

40 

21 

16 

14 

11.50 

9.50 

8.50 

7.25 

6.25 

50  and  over 

45 

22 

16.50 

14.50 

12 

10 

9 

7.50 

6.50 

55  and  over 

50 

23 

17 

15 

12.50 

10.50 

9.50 

7.75 

6.75 

60  and  over 

55 

24 

18 

15.50 

13 

11 

10 

8 

7 

65  and  over 

60... 

25 

19 

16 

13.50 

11.25 

10.25 

8.20 

7.20 

70  and  over 

65 

26 

20 

16.50, 

14 

11.50 

10.50 

8.40 

7 

.40 

75  and  over 

70 

27 

21 

17 

14.50 

12 

11 

9 

7.60 

80  and  over 

75 

28 

22 

17.50 

15 

12.25 

11.25 

9.25 

7.80 

85  and  over 

80 

29 

23 

18 

15.50 

12.50 

11.50 

9.50 

8 

90  and  over 

85 

30 

24 

19 

16 

13 

12 

9.75 

8.20 

95  and  over 

90 

31 

25 

20 

16.50 

13.25 

12.25 

10 

8.40 

100  and  over 

95 

32 

26 

21 

17 

13.50 

12.50 

10.25 

8.60 

105  and  over  100 

33 

27 

22 

17.50 

13.75 

12.75 

10.50 

8.80 

110  and  over  105 

34 

28 

22.50 

18 

14 

13 

10.75 

9 

115  and  over  110 

35 

29 

23 

18.50 

14.25 

13.25 

11 

9.20 

120  and  over  115. 

36 

30 

24 

19 

14.50 

13.50 

11.25 

9.40 

125  and  over  120 

37 

31 

25 

19.50 

14.75 

13.75 

11.50 

9.60 

130  and  over  125 

38 

32 

26 

20 

15 

14 

11.75 

9.80 

135  and  over  130 

39 

33 

27 

20.50 

15.50 

14.25 

12 

10 

140  and  over  135 

40 

34 

28 

21 

16 

14.50 

12.25 

10.25 

145  and  over  140 

41 

35 

29 

21.50 

16.50 

15 

12.50 

10.50 

150  and  over  145 

42 

36 

29.50 

22 

17 

15.50 

12 

.75 

10.75 

155  and  over  150 

43 

37 

30 

22.50 

17.25 

15.75 

13 

n 

160  and  over 

155 

44 

38 

30.50 

23 

17.5!) 

16 

13.25 

11.25 

165  and  over 

160 

4 

15 

39 

31 

23.50 

17.75 

16.25 

13.50 

11.50 

170  and  over  165 

46 

40 

31.50 

24 

18 

16.50 

13.75 

11.75 

175  and  over  170 

47 

41 

32 

24.50 

18.25 

16.75 

14 

12 

180  and  over 

175 

48 

42 

32.50 

25 

18.50 

17 

14.25 

12.25 

185  and  over  180 

49 

43 

33 

25.50 

18.75 

17.25 

14.50 

12.50 

190  and  over  185 

50 

44 

33.50 

26 

19 

17.50 

14.75 

12.75 

195  and  over  190 

51 

45 

34 

26.50 

19.25 

17 

.75 

15 

13 

200  and  over  195 

52 

46 

34.50 

27 

19.50 

18 

15.25 

13.25 

4 

4 

4.25 

4.50 
4.75 

5 

5.20 

5.40 

5.60 

5.80 

6 

6.20 

6.40 

6.50 

6.60 

6.80 

7 

7.10 

7.20 

7.80 

7.40 

7.50 

7.60 
7.70 

7.80 

8 

8.25 

8.40 

8.60 

8.80 

9 

9.20 

9.40 

9.60 

9.80 

10 

10.20 

10.40 

10.60 

10.80 


8 

3 

3.25 

3.50 
3.75 

4 

4.10 

4.20 

4.30 

4.40 

4.50 

4.60 

4.70 

4.80 
4.90 

5 

5.10 

5.20 

5.25 

5.30 

5.40 

5.50 

5.60 

5.70 

5.80 

6 

6.20 

6.40 

6.60 

6.80 

7 

7.20 

7.40 

7.60 

7.80 

8 

8.20 

8.40 

8.60 

8.80 


/ 


THE  RAILROAD  BILL 


39 


FREIGHT  RATES  ON  MERCHANDISE  AND  COMMODITIES. 


Commodities , car-loads , m cents  and  fractional  hundredths  Live  stock , car-loads. 

of  a cent  per  100  lbs.,  minimum  weight  2U,000  lbs.  Car , inside  measure , 

31  //.  In  dollars  and 


Distance  in  miles. 

W 

CO  Cfi  CO 

Cement,  stucco,  lime,  plaster, 
and  salt,  in  sacks,  barrels, 
or  bulk 

O 

co  a>  n 2 

Soft  coal,  lump  or  nut 

Soft  coal,  slack  or  pea 

Wheat,  flour,  oat  meal,  flax 
seed,  hemp  seed,  castor 
beans,  and  millet  seed 

Corn,  oats,  rj*e,  barley,  sorghum 
seed,  corn  meal,  bran,  grain 
screenings,  chop  feed,  mill 
feed  and  mill  stuffs 

cents  per  car-load. 

rd  and  soft  lumber,  laths, 
hingles,  sash,  doors,  blinds, 
,nd  moldings,  and  fence 
osts 

mmon  brick,  sand,  gravel, 
ommon  clay,  building  stone, 
tone  flagging,  or  crushed 
tone 

Horses  and  mules 

Cattle  and  hogs 

Sheep  — single-deck  car 

5 and  under.... 

3.50 

3.25 

2.50 

2 

1.60 

4 

3.50 

10.00 

8.00 

7.00 

10  and  over  5 

3.75 

3.50 

2.75 

2.20 

1.76 

4.50 

4 

11.00 

9.00 

8.00 

15  and  over  10 

4 

3.75 

3 

2.40 

1.92 

5 

4.25 

12.00 

10.00 

8.50 

20  and  over  15 

4.25 

4 

3.10 

2.60 

2.08 

5.25 

4.50 

13.00 

11.00 

9.00 

25  aud  over  20 

4.50 

4.20 

3.20 

2.80 

2.24 

5.50 

4.75 

14.00 

12.00 

9.50 

30  and  over  25 

4.75 

4.40 

3.30 

3 

2.40 

5.75 

5 

15.00 

13.00 

10.00 

35  and  over  30 

5 

4.60 

3.40 

3.15 

2.52 

6 

5.20 

16.00 

14.00 

10.50 

40  and  over  35 

5.20 

4.80 

3.50 

3.30 

2.64 

6.25 

5.40 

17.00 

14.75 

11.00 

45  and  over  40 

5.40 

5 

3.60 

3.45 

2.76 

6.50 

5.60 

18.00 

15.56^ 

^11. 50 

50  and  over  45 

5.60 

5.20 

3.70 

3.60 

2.88 

6.75 

5.80 

19.00 

16.25 

12.00 

55  and  over  50 

5.80 

5.40 

3.80 

3.75 

3 

7 

6 

20.00 

17  Mr 

12.50 

60  and  over  55 

6 

5.60 

3.90 

3.90 

3.12 

7.20 

6.15 

21.00 

17.75 

13.00 

65  and  over  60 

6.20 

5.80 

4 

4.05 

3.24 

7.40 

6.30 

22.00 

18.50 

13.50 

70  and  over  65 

6.40 

6 

4.10 

4.20 

3.36 

7.60 

6.40 

22.75 

19.25 

14.00 

75  and  over  70 

6.60 

6.15 

4.20 

4.35 

3.48 

7.80 

6.50 

23.50 

20.00 

14.50 

80  and  over  75 

6.80 

6.30 

4.30 

4.50 

3.60 

8 

6.70 

24.25 

20.50 

15.00 

85  and  over  80 

7 

6.45 

4.40 

4.65 

3.72 

8.20 

6.80 

25.00 

21.00 

15.50 

90  and  over  85 

7.15 

6.60 

4.50 

4.80 

3.84 

8.40 

6.90 

25.75 

21.50 

16.00 

95  and  over  90 

7.30 

6.75 

4.60 

4.95 

3.96 

8.60 

7 

26.50 

22.00 

16.50 

100  and  over  95 

7.45 

6.90 

4.70 

5.10 

4.08 

8.80 

7.10 

27.25 

22.50 

17.00 

105  and  over  100 

7.60 

7 

4.80 

5.20 

4.16 

9 

7.20 

28.00 

23.00 

17.25 

110  and  over  105 

7.75 

7.15 

4.90 

5.30 

4.24 

9.20 

7.30 

28.50 

23.50 

17.50 

115  and  over  110 

7.90 

7.30 

5 

5.40 

4.32 

9.40 

7.40 

29.00 

24.00 

17.75 

120  and  over  115 

8 

7.45 

5.10 

5.50 

4.40 

9.60 

7.50 

29.50 

24.50 

18.00 

125  and  over  120 

8.15 

7.60 

5.20 

5.60 

4.48 

9.80 

7.60 

30.00 

25.00 

18.25 

130  and  over  125 

8.30 

7.75 

5.30 

5.70 

4.56 

10 

7.70 

30.50 

25.50 

18.50 

135  and  over  130 

8.45 

7.90 

5.40 

5.80 

4.64 

10.20 

7.80 

31.00 

26.00 

18.75 

140  and  over  135 

8.60 

8 

5.50 

5.90 

4.72 

10.40 

7.90 

31.50 

26.50 

19.00 

145  and  over  140 

8.75 

8.15 

5.60 

6 

4.80 

10.60 

8 

32.00 

27.00 

19.25 

150  and  over  145 

8.90 

8.30 

5.70 

6.10 

4.88 

10.80 

8.10 

32.50 

27.50 

19.50 

155  and  over  150 

9 

8.45 

5.80 

6.20 

4.96 

11 

8.20 

33.00 

28.00 

19.75 

160  and  over  155 

9.15 

8.60“ 

5.90 

6.30 

5.04 

11.10 

8.30 

33.50 

28.50 

20.00 

165  and  over  160 

9.30 

8.75 

6 

6.40 

5.12 

11.20 

8.40 

34.00 

29.00 

20.25 

170  and  over  165 

9.45 

8.90 

6.10 

6.50 

5.20 

11.30 

8.50 

34.50 

29.50 

20.50 

175  and  over  170 

9.60 

9 

6.20 

6.60 

5.28 

11.40 

8.60 

35.00 

30.00 

20.75 

180  and  over  175 

9.75 

9.10 

6.30 

6.70 

5.36 

11.50 

8.70 

35.50 

30.25 

21.00 

185  and  over  180 

9.90 

9.20 

6.40 

6.80 

5.44 

11.60 

8.80 

36.00 

30.50 

21.25 

190  and  over  185 

10 

9.30 

6.50 

6.90 

5.52 

11. 7G 

8.90 

36.50 

31.00 

21.50 

195  and  over  190 

10.15 

9.40 

6.60 

n 

5.60 

11.80 

9 

37.00 

31.25 

21.75 

200  and  over  195 

10.30 

9.50 

6^70 

7.10 

5.68 

11.90 

9.10 

37.50 

31.50 

22.00 

40 


ROPUL1ST  HAND-BOOK, 


KANSAS  DISTANCE  SCHEDULE  OF  REASONABLE  MAXIMUM 


Distance  in  miles. 


210  and  over  200. 
220  and  over  210. 
230  and  over  220. 
240  and  over  230. 
250  and  over  240. 

260  and  over  250. 
270  and  over  260. 
280  and  over  270. 
290  and  over  280. 
300  and  over  290. 

310  and  over  300. 
320  and  over  310. 
330  and  over  320. 
340  and  over  330. 
350  and  over  340. 

360  and  over  350. 
370  and  over  360, 
380  and  over  370. 
390  and  over  380. 
400  and  over  390. 

410  and  over  400. 
420  and  over  410. 
430  and  over  420. 
440  and  over  430, 
450  and  over  440. 

460  and  over  450, 
470  and  over  460 
480  and  over  470 
490  and  over  480 
500  and  over  490 


Merchandise , classes , in  cents 
and  fractional  hundredths 
of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


54 

56 

58 

60 

62 

64 

66 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 


47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 
61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 


35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 
61 
62 

63 

64 


28 

28.50 

29 

29.50 

30 

30.50 

31 

31.50 

32 

32.50 

33 

33.50 

34 

34.50 

35 

35.50 

36 

36.50 

37 

37.50 

38 

38.50 

39 

39.50 

40 

40.50 

41 

41.50 

42 

42.50 


Car-loads,  minimum  weight  20,000  lbs. , in  cents 
and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


x 


20 

20.50 
21 

21.50 
22 

22.50 

23 

23.50 

24 

24.50 

25 

25.50 

26 

26.50 

27 

27.50 

28 

28.50 

29 

29.50 

30 

30.50 

31 

31.50 

32 

32.50 

33 

33.50 

34 

34.50 


18.50 

19 

19.50 

20 

20.50 
21 

21.50 
22 

22.50 

23 

23.50 

24 

24.50 

25 

25.50 

26 

26.50 

27 

27.50 

28 

28.50 

29 

29.50 

30 

30.  JO 

31 

31.50 

32 

32.50 

33 


15;  75 
16.25 
16.75 

17 

17.50 

18 

18.50 

19 

19.50 

20 

20.50 
21 

21.50 
22 

22.50 

23 

23.50 

24 

24.50 

25 

25.50 

26 

26.50 

27 

27.50 

28 

28.50 

29 

29.50 

30 


13.75 

14.20 

14.60 
15 

15.40 

15.80 

16.20 

16.60 
17 

17.40 

17.80 

18.20 

18.60 
19 

19.40 

19.80 

20.20 

20.60 
21 

21.40 

21.80 

22.20 

22.60 
23 

23.40 

23.80 

24.20 

24.60 

25 

25.40 


11.20 

11.60 

12 

12.40 

12.80 

13.20 

13.60 
14 

14.40 

14.80 

15.20 

15.60 
16 

16.40 

16.80 

17.20 

17.60 
18 

18.40 

18.80 

19.20 

19.60 
20 

20.40 

20.80 

21.20 

21.60 
22 

22.40 

22.80 


M 


9.20 

9.60 

10 

10.40 

10.80 

11.20 

11.60 

12 

12.40 

12.80 

13.20 

13.60 
14 

14.40 

14.80 

15.20 

15.60 
16 

16.40 

16.80 

17.20 

17.60 
18 

18.40 

18.80 

19.20 

19.60 
20 

20.50 

21 


THE  RAILROAD  BILL 


41 


FREIGHT  RATES  ON  MERCHANDISE  AND  COMMODITIES  — Concluded. 


Commodities , car-loads , in  cents  and  fractional  hundredths 
of  a cent  per  100  lbs.,  minimum  weight  % ,000  lbs . 


Live  stock , car  loads. 
Car,  inside  measure, SI 
feet.  In  dollars  and 


Distance  in 
miles. 

Hard  and  soft  lumber,  laths, 
shingles,  sash,  doors,  blinds, 
and  mouldings,  and  fence 

rtosts 

Cl 

M ® 

a 

Soft  coal,  lump  or  nut 

Soft  coal,  slack  or  pea 

1 

Wheat,  flour,  oat  meal,  flax 
seed,  hemp  seed,  castor 
beans,  and  millet  seed 

Corn  ,oats,  rye,  barley,  sorghu  m 
seed,  corn  meal,  bran,  grain 
screenings,  chop  feed,  mill 
- feed,  and  mill  stuffs 

cents  per  car-load. 

ment,  stucco,  lime,  plaster, 
rad  salt,  in  sacks,  barrels, 
hulk 

mmon  brick,  sand,  gravel, 
sommon  clay , building  stone, 
itone  flagging,  or  crushed 
it, on  pi 

Horses  and  mules 

< 

i 

i 

i 

i 

1 

i 

1 

i 

a 

i 

n 

ss 

■-*- 

•5" 

» 

d 

Oj 

3d 

O 

rQ 

X 

Sheep  — single-deck  car 

210  and  over  200 

10.50 

9.70 

6.90 

7.30 

5.80 

12.10 

9.30 

38.00 

32.00 

22.50 

220  and  over  210 

10.70 

9.90 

7.10 

7.50 

6 

12.30 

9.50 

38.50 

32.50 

23.00 

230  and  over  220 

10.90 

10 

7.30 

7.70 

6.16 

12.50 

9.70 

39.00 

33.00 

23.50 

240  and  over  230 

11.10 

10.20 

7.50 

7.90 

6.32 

12.70 

9.90 

39.50 

33.50 

24.00 

250  and  over  240 

11.30 

10.40 

7.70 

8.10 

6.48 

12.90 

10.10 

40.00 

34.00 

24.50 

260  and  over  250 

11.50 

10.60 

7.90 

8.30 

6.64 

13.10 

10.30 

40.50 

34 

.50 

25.00 

270  and  over  260 

11.70 

10.80 

8.10 

8.50 

6.80 

13.30 

10.50 

41.00 

35.00 

25.50 

280  and  over  270 

11.90 

11 

8.30 

8.70 

6.96 

13.50 

10.70 

41.50 

35.50^ 

26.00 

290  and  over  280 

12 

11.20 

8.50 

8.90 

7.12 

13.70 

10.90 

42.00 

36 

i.00^ 

726.50 

300  and  over  290 

12.20 

11.40 

8.70 

9.10 

7.28 

13.90 

11.10 

42.50 

36.50 

/ 27.00 

310  and  over  300 

12.40 

11.60 

8.90 

9.30 

7.44 

14.10 

11.30 

43.00 

37.00 

27.25 

320  and  over  310 

12.60 

11.80 

9.10 

9.50 

7.60 

14.30 

11.50 

43.50 

37.50 

27.50 

330  and  over  320 

12.80 

12 

9.30 

9.70 

7.76 

14.50 

11.70 

44.00 

38.00 

27.75 

340  and  over  330 

13 

12.20 

9.50 

9.90 

7.92 

14.70 

11.90 

44.50 

38.50 

28.00 

350  and  over  340 

13.20 

12.40 

9.70 

10.10 

8.08 

14.90 

12 

45.00 

39.00 

28.25 

360  and  over  350 

13.40 

12.60 

9.90 

10.30 

8.24 

15.10 

12.20 

45.50 

39.50 

28.50 

370  and  over  360 

13.60 

12.80 

10.10 

10.50 

8.40 

15.30 

12.40 

46.00 

40.00 

28.75 

380  and  over  370 

13.80 

13 

10.30 

10.70 

8.56 

15.50 

12.60 

46.50 

40.50 

29.00 

390  and  over  380 

14 

13.20 

10.50 

10.90 

8.72 

15.70 

12.80 

47.00 

41 

.00 

29.25 

400  and  over  390 

14.20 

13.40 

10.70 

11 

8.80 

15.90 

13 

47.50 

41.50 

29.50 

410  and  over  400 

14.40 

13.60 

10.90 

11.10 

8.88 

16.10 

13.20 

48.00 

42.00 

29.75 

420  and  over  410 

14.60 

13.80 

11.10 

11.20 

8.96 

16.30 

13.40 

48.50 

42.50 

30.00 

430  and  over  420 

14.80 

14 

11.30 

11.30 

9.04 

16.50 

13.60 

49.00 

43.00 

30.25 

440  and  over  430 

15 

14.20 

11.50 

11.40 

9.12 

16.70 

13.80 

49.50 

43.50 

30.50 

450  and  over  440 

15.20 

14.40 

11.70 

11.50 

9.20 

16.90 

14 

50.00 

44.00 

30.75 

460  and  over  450 

15.40 

14.60 

11.90 

11.60 

9.28 

17.10 

14.20 

50.50 

44.50 

31.00 

470  and  over  460 

15.60 

14.80 

12.10 

11.70 

9.36 

17.30 

14.40 

51.00 

45.00 

31.25 

480  and  over  470 

15.80 

15 

12.30 

11.80 

9.44 

17.50 

14.60 

51.50 

45.50 

31.50 

490  and  over  480 

16 

15.20 

12.50 

11.90 

9.52 

17.70 

14.80 

52.00 

46.00 

31.75 

500  and  over  490 

16.20 

15.40 

12.70 

12 

9.60 

17.90 

15 

52.50 

46.50 

32.00 

42 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


[Western  classification  No.  10,  in  effect  on  all  railroads  operated  in  Kansas 
July  15th,  1890,  followed  the  foregoing  schedule  and  was  adopted  as  amended 
by  section  16  and  made  the  legal  classification  of  Kansas.  Its  publication 
here  is  omitted  for  want  of  space.] 

Seo.  16.  In  construing  the  foregoing  schedule  of  maximum  rates,  when  the 
rate  for  the  exact  distance  is  not  shown  therein,  the  rate  to  the  nearest  point  or 
distance  stated  in  the  said  schedule  will  prevail,  and  shall  be  held  to  apply.  In 
the  construction  of  the  said  classification  of  freights,  the  figures  1,  2,  3,  4 and 
5,  given  opposite  each  article,  shall  be  construed  to  mean  first,  second,  third, 
fourth  and  fifth  class  respectively;  and  1 & \ for  one  and  one-half  first  class, 
D 1 for  double  first  class,  3 t for  three  times  first  class,  4 t 1 for  four  times 
first  class,  O.  R.  for  owner’s  risk,  C.  R.  for  carrier’s  risk,  S.  U.  for  set  up,  K.  D. 
for  knocked  down,  C.  L.  for  car-load,  L.  C.  L.  for  less  than  car-load,  A,  B,  0, 
D and  E as  referring  to  the  table  of  maximum  rates  and  classes  therein  re- 
ferred to.  Articles  not  enumerated  shall  be  classed  with  analogous  articles. 
Flour,  corn  meal,  bran,  and  millstuffs,  in  sacks  or  barrels,  shipped  at  own- 
er’s risk  of  wet  or  waste,  in  lots  of  ten  thousand  pounds  but  less  than  car- 
loads, shall  be  taken  at  one  and  one-fifth  of  the  car-load  rate  provided  for 
flour;  in  lots  of  two  thousand  pounds  but  less  than  ten  thousand  pounds, 
shall  be  taken  at  one  and  two-fifths  of  the  car-load  rate,  f Cement,  lime, 
stucco,  plaster,  and  salt,  in  sacks  or  barrels,  in  lots  of  five  thousand  pounds 
or  over  but  less  than  car-loads,  shall  be  taken  at  one  and  two-fifths  of  the  car- 
load rate  on  cement.  Lumber  rate  covers  straight  or  mixed  car-loads  of  hard 
or  soft  lumber,  laths,  shingles,  doors,  sash  (if  glazed  released),  blinds,  and 
mouldings.  Hard  coal  or  coke  shall  be  taken  in  car-loads  at  a rate  not  ex- 
ceeding twenty  per  cent,  higher  than  the  rate  provided  for  soft  coal  in  car- 
loads. Hay,  baled,  in  car-loads,  minimum  weight  sixteen  thousand  pounds, 
shall  be  taken  at  class  E rate.  Green  apples,  car-loads,  in  barrels,  sacks,  or 
bulk,  shall  be  taken  at  class  B rate.  Potatoes,  car-loads,  in  barrels,  sacks,  or 
bulk,  shall  be  taken  at  class  D rate.  Rock  salt  shall  be  taken  in  car-loads  at 
the  same  rates  provided  for  soft  coal  in  car-loads. 

Seo.  17.  No  common  carrier,  railroad  corporation  or  transportation  com- 
pany, which  shall  belong  to  class  B road,  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and 
which  shall  be  classified  as  belonging  to  class  B of  this  act,  shall  be  permitted 
or  allowed  to  charge  more  than  the  rate  set  forth  in  the  foregoing  schedule  of 
rates,  nor  adopt  or  use  a different  classification  of  freights  than  that  adopted 
in  the  foregoing  schedule  of  maximum  rates  and  classifications,  unless  it  shall 
be  ascertained,  upon  the  hearing  provided  for  herein  before  the  said  Board 
of  Commissioners,  that  the  same  is  not  a just  and  reasonable  rate  and  classi- 
fication; but  the  said  rate  and  classification,  if  after  said  hearing  before  said 
commissioners  as  provided  for  in  this  act  be  found  just  and  reasonable  and 


THE  RAILROAD  BILL. 


43 


shall  not  be  changed  by  them,  shall  be  the  maximum  rate  of  charges  as  pro- 
vided in  this  act  for  all  roads  classed  as  B,  by  said  commissioners,  on  and 
after  July  1st,  1891;  and  all  such  companies,  corporations,  carriers,  or  trans- 
portation lines  are  prohibited  from  charging  any  greater  or  higher  rate  than 
allowed  by  this  act  and  designated  in  said  schedules.  All  railway  corpora- 
tions, common  carriers,  or  transportation  companies,  referred  to  in  this  act 
and  classified  as  belonging  to  class  A by  said  commissioners,  shall  be  allowed 
to  charge  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  said  rate  so  fixed  and  allowed  to  be  charged 
by  roads  belonging  to  class  B,  unless  otherwise  determined  by  said  commis- 
sioners as  provided  in  reference  to  said  companies  or  roads  of  class  B;  and 
all  railway  or  transportation  lines,  corporations  or  companies,  herein  referred 
to  and  classed  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  as  class  C roads,  shall  not 
charge  or  receive  more  than  ten  per  cent,  in  addition  to  said  schedule  maxi- 
mum rates,  unless  otherwise  determined  by  said  commission  as  provided  in 
reference  to  roads  belonging  to  said  class  B. 

Seo.  18.  If  any  company,  corporation  or  association  referred  to  in  this  act 
fail  to  observe  or  refuse  to  comply  with  any  of  the  provisions  hereof,  or  re- 
fuse to  obey  any  order  of  the  said  railway  commissioners,  made  under  the 
authority  of  this  act,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Attorney  General  to  institute, 
at  the  request  of  the  said  commissioners,  or  of  the  Governor  of  the  State,  an 
action  in  behalf  of  the  State  of  Kansas  and  in  its  name,  to  compel  obedience 
thereto  and  observance  thereof,  and  no  bond  for  cost  or  other  bond  shall  be 
required  of  the  State  in  any  such  proceedings.  The  said  Attorney  General 
may  also  employ,  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  said  commissioners,  assistant 
attorneys,  to  carry  on  any  action  brought  under  this  act,  or  to  test  the  valid- 
ity thereof:  Provided,  The  compensation  to  be  paid  therefor  shall  be  first  agreed 
upon,  and  there  be  sufficient  funds  appropriated  under  this  act  unexpended  to 
pay  for  such  services. 

Seo.  19.  The  said  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  shall,  on  August  first  in 
each  year,  publish  the  reasonable  maximum  rates  and  classifications  in  force 
in  this  State  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  as  applied  and  in  force  in  this 
State,  showing  the  roads  to  which  the  same  is  applied  and  their  classification, 
and  shall  furnish  ten  copies  thereof  certified  to  by  the  chairman  of  said  com- 
mission under  the  seal  thereof  to  the  county  clerk  of  each  county  in  this  State, 
two  copies  of  which  at  least  shall  be  preserved  by  said  clerk  in  his  office,  open 
for  public  inspection  during  hfs  office  hours.  The  said  certified  copies  shall 
be  evidence  in  any  court  in  this  State  upon  the  trial  of  any  action,  civil  or 
criminal,  of  the  truth  of  the  matters  therein  stated  and  the  rates  and  classifi- 
cations therein  fixed.  It  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  each  railroad  or  transporta- 
tion company  coming  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  to  keep  in  each  of  its 
depots  and  freight  offices  a printed  copy  of  its  schedules  of  maximum  rates 


44 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


and  classification  of  freights  in  use  and  enforced  by  it,  which  shall  be  open  to 
public  inspection;  and  it  is  further  made  the  duty  of  the  county  attorney  and 
sheriff  in  each  county  in  this  State  through  which  any  such  railroad  runs  or  is 
operated,  to  compare  its  published  rates  as  posted  under  this  act  on  the  first 
Monday  in  September  and  March  of  each  year,  and  to  certify  to  said  commis- 
sioners whether  the  same  conform  to  the  said  rates  furnished  said  county 
clerk,  whether  or  not  the  rates  provided  for  in  this  act  are  observed  by  said 
companies,  and  if  not,  in  what  respect  the  same  is  violated,  and  report  the 
names  and  residences  of  all  witnesses  by  whom  such  violation  can  be  proven. 
Any  sheriff  or  county  attorney  failing  to  make  such  examination  and  report 
shall  be  liable  to  be  removed  from  office  upon  conviction  thereof  in  any  court 
of  record,  and  it  is  hereby  made  the  duty  of  the  Attorney  General  to  see  that 
this  section  of  this  act  is  observed  and  enforced. 

Seo.  20.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  railroad  corporation  or  company  in 
this  State  to  furnish  reasonable  facilities  for  loading  and  unloading  freight 
offered  to  it  for  transportation  and  reasonable  storage  therefor,  and  such 
companies  shall,  upon  demand  of  any  shipper,  and  within  a reasonable  time 
after  being  demanded,  furnish  cars  sufficient  to  transport  all  freight  offered 
for  shipment.  The  said  Board  of  Commissioners  shall  have  full  power,  upon 
application  made  to  them,  to  compel  every  such  company  to  comply  with  the 
provisions  of  this  section,  and  any  company  failing  to  obey  any  order  made 
in  reference  thereto  by  said  commissioners  after  notice  and  hearing  thereof, 
shall  be  liable  to  any  person  injured  thereby  in  double  the  damages  by  him 
sustained,  and  in  any  such  action,  the  court  shall  tax  as  part  of  the  cost  a 
reasonable  attorney’s  fee  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff,  and  the  further  sum  of 
fifty  dollars  as  exemplary  damages,  to  be  collected  by  execution  as  in  other 
cases. 

Seo.  21.  There  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  funds  in  the  State  treas- 
ury not  otherwise  appropriated,  the  sum  of  fifty  thousand  dollars  or  so  much 
thereof  as  may  be  needed,  to  pay  the  salaries  of  the  said  commissioners  and 
meet  the  requirements  of  this  act,  until  the  first  day  of  June,  1893:  Provided , 
That  none  of  said  moneys  shall  be  drawn  or  paid  except  upon  the  vouchers 
of  said  commissioners,  attested  by  the  Governor,  stating  what  the  same  is  for; 
and  the  said  commissioners  shall  keep  an  accurate  and  detailed  account  of  all 
moneys  drawn  from  such  treasury,  and  for  what  expended,  and  showing  the 
amount  of  appropriation  on  hand  unexpended,  and  shall  report  the  same  to 
the  Legislature  of  this  State  at  its  regular  sessions  every  two  years. 

Sec.  22.  The  said  commissioners  shall  also  report  to  the  said  Legislature, 
briefly,  its  action  and  any  legislation  it  deems  needed  to  secure  reasonable 
and  fair  rates  of  transportation.  The  said  report  shall  also  show  the  number 
of  miles  of  each  line  of  road  in  the  State,  the  total  number  of  miles,  the  actual 


THE  RAILROAD  BILL. 


45 


cost  of  construction  per  mile  of  each  line  of  road  in  this  State,  the  amount  of 
stock  issued  by  each  company,  the  average  amount  per  mile  in  Kansas,  or 
proportioned  to  the  miles  in  this  State;  'the  items  of  equipment  of  such  road 
and  the  cost  and  value  thereof;  the  bonded  indebtedness  of  each  road,  and  its 
average  per  mile  in  Kansas;  the  amount  of  aid  received  by  each  company  or 
road  from  the  General  Government  and  its  value,  and  the  amount  realized 
therefrom,  and  the  average  of  such  aid  per  mile;  the  amount  of  local  or  mu- 
nicipal aid  received  by  each  road,  and  its  average  per  mile;  the  officers  and 
address  of  each;  when  each  road  was  constructed,  when  begun,  when  com- 
pleted; the  amount  in  pounds  and  tons  of  freight  shipped  or  loaded  at  each 
station  in  Kansas  annually  for  the  two  preceding  years,  and  the  freight  charged 
for  the  shipment  thereof;  the  number  of  cars  of  wheat,  corn,  cattle,  hogs,  oats, 
live  stock,  salt,  coal,  and  the  number  of  cars  of  freight,  and  tons  or  pounds 
thereof  unloaded  in  this  State  at  its  stations  during  said  time,  and  the  amount 
collected  therefor,  without  reference  to  whether  said  freight  was  shipped  from 
points  within  this  State  to  points  without  the  State,  or  from  points  without 
to  points  within  the  State,  or  between  points  in  the  State,  and  showing  the 
amount  charged  therefor  on  all  such  freight.  Such  report  shall  also  show  the 
number  of  persons  employed  by  each  company,  and  the  grade  of  employ- 
ment, the  amount  paid  for  such  employment,  the  amount  paid  for  material 
in  repairing  its  road  and  machinery,  the  actual  cost  of  operating  such  road 
during  the  year,  and  the  cost  of  transporting  freight  per  ton  per  mile  to  such 
^companies;  the  amount  paid  by  each  road  in  taxes,  dividends,  interest  upon 
bonds,  and  operating  expenses,  and  such  other  matters  as  it  deems  for  the 
information  of  the  Legislature  in  reference  to  such  roads.  It  shall  be  the 
duty  of  each  company,  or  its  agents,  officers  or  employes,  coming  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  to  answer,  under  oath  if  required,  all  such  questions  as 
may  be  propounded,  to  enable  said  commissioners  to  report  the  said  matters 
herein  required.  And  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  president,  auditor,  general 
traffic  manager,  general  freight  agent,  or  assistants;  general  passenger  agent, 
or  assistant;  the  traveling  freight  or  passenger  agents,  the  commercial  freight 
agents,  the  local  freight  or  ticket  agents;  the  master  mechanic,  or  his  assist- 
ant; the  roadmaster,  or  his  assistants;  the  chief  surgeon,  or  his  assistant;  or 
the  chief  clerk,  or  any  clerk  of  the  president,  or  any  of  the  several  depart- 
ments above  enumerated  of  any  railroad  company  engaged  in  transporting 
freight  or  passengers  to  or  from  any  station  to  any  other  station  on  its  line 
of  railroad  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  to  furnish  to  the  Railroad  Commissioners 
of  the  State  of  Kansas,  when  requested  in  writing,  any  information  relating 
to  the  cost  of  operating  said  railroad,  or  the -cost  of  operating  any  of  the  sev- 
eral departments,  together  with  the  tonnage  of  freight  received  at  or  forwarded 
from  any  or  all  stations  on  said  line  of  railroad  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  with 


46 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


earnings  accruing  from  freight  received,  tickets  sold  or  freight  forwarded 
from  said  stations.  Any  persons  failing  to  furnish  such  information  when  re- 
quired shall  be  subject  to  a fine  of  not  less  than  one  thousand  dollars  nor 
more  than  five  thousand  dollars,  or  imprisonment  for  not  less  than  one  year 
nor  more  than  five,  or  both,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

Sec.  23.  In  any  action  brought  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  in  any 
court  within  this  State,  or  in  any  action  brought  to  test  the  validity  thereof, 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Attorney  General  to  bring  the  matter  to  a speedy 
and  early  hearing,  and  the  matter  being  deemed  one  of  public  importance, 
the  court  before  whom  such  action  is  pending  shall,  upon  its  own  motion  or 
the  motion  of  any  party  thereto,  advance  the  said  proceedings  or  action  upon 
the  docket  of  the  said  court,  giving  the  same  preference  over  all  other  actions 
in  the  order  of  hearing,  except  criminal  causes;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  this  State,  in  any  such  proceedings 
pending  in  said  court,  to  cause  such  advancement  and  hearing  of  said  action 
to  be  had  as  to  bring  the  same  to  a speedy  hearing  and  judgment. 

Sec.  24.  The  said  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  shall  have  full  power 
and  authority  to  prescribe  and  fix,  after  notice  and  hearing  as  provided  for 
in  this  act,  the  compensation  to  be  charged  by  any  railroad  company  for 
switching  any  car  or  doing  or  performing  any  other  act  by  it  done  in  the 
transportation,  shipment,  loading,  unloading  or  storage  of  freight,  limiting 
such  charges  to  a reasonable  and  proper  charge  therefor. 

Sec.  25.  The  said  commissioners  may  also  employ  one  clerk  and  one  ste- 
nographer at  a salary  of  not  more  than  one  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  to 
be  paid  out  of  the  appropriation  hereby  made,  and  shall  provide  itself  with  a 
seal,  on  which  shall  be  engraved  the  words:  “ Seal  of  the  State  Board  of  Rail- 
road Commissioners  of  Kansas;”  and  all  process  or  orders  by  it  made  shall 
be  authenticated  therewith. 

Sec.  26.  This  act,  being  deemed  of  immediate  importance,  shall  go  ^nto 
effect^n  and  after  its  publication  in  the 


TRANSPORTATION. 

The  members  of  the  Legislature  elected  by  the  People’s  Party  in  Novem- 
ber, 1890,  were  pledged  to  enact  only  such  laws  as  would  afford  equal  and 
exact  justice  to  all  — special  privileges  to  none.  The  People’s  legislators  rec- 
ognized the  unprecedented  changes  that  have  occurred  during  the  past  thirty 
years.  The  invention  and  perfection  of  machinery  which  has  displaced  man- 
ual labor  has  been  wonderful,  and  this  has  worked  economic  changes  not 
dreamed  of  in  the  past.  The  ease  and  (when  compared  with  the  methods  in 


TRANSPORTA  TION. 


47 


use  in  Kansas  thirty  years  ago)  the  (Cheapness  of  transportation  are  among 
the  wonderful  feats  accomplished  in  the  last  quarter  of  a century.  Looking 
back  to  the  territorial  days  of  Kansas,  we  find,  in  1857-58,  Messrs.  Russell  & 
Waddell  transporting  Government  supplies  in  wagons  drawn  by  oxen  from 
Ft.  Leavenworth  to  Salt  Lake  City.  Two  years  later,  the  discovery  of  gold  in 
Colorado  induced  large  numbers  to  emigrate  to  the  new  gold  fields.  The 
nearest  point  at  which  supplies  could  be  obtained  was  the  Missouri  River,  and 
all  merchandise  required  by  the  immigrant  in  Colorado  had  to  be  transported 
in  wagons.  To  make  the  trip  from  the  Missouri  River  to  Colorado  and  re- 
turn with  an  ox  team  required  one  hundred  days;  with  a mule  team  the  round 
trip  could  be  made  in  sixty  days.  This  saving  in  time  and  labor  caused 
freighters  to  substitute  mules  in  place  of  oxen,  although  the  cost  of  the  latter 
was  more  than  double  the  price  of  an  ox  team.  Nevertheless  the  money  saved 
in  wages  more  than  compensated  for  the  additional  investment  in  mules. 

Compabison. — We  compare  the  cost  of  labor  in  freighting  by  wagon  in 
1860-66  with  the  cost  of  labor  in  transportation  by  railroad  in  1890.  To  illus- 
trate: B,  a freighter,  contracts  with  C,  a merchant,  to  transport  during  the 
year  — say  1865  — 5,000,000  pounds  of  merchandise  from  the  Missouri  River 
to  Denver,  Colorado;  B has  250  mule  teams;  he  employs  250  teamsters,  the 
wages  of  teamsters  average  $40  per  month,  or  $480  per  annum;  B loads  in 
each  wagon  3,350  pounds  of  merchandise,  or  837,500  pounds  in  250  wagons; 
during  the  year  he  makes  six  trips  to  Denver  with  his  mule  train;  he  delivers 
the  5,000,000  pounds  of  merchandise  agreeable  to  his  contract;  he  pays  for 
labor  — 

Wages  of  250  teamsters  (1860-66)  one  year  each,  at  $480  per  annum * $120,000 

The  average  number  of  loaded  cars  hauled  by  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  ( Report 
of  Kansas  R.  R.  Com.,  1890,  p. 319)  in  each  freight  train  is  twenty;  the  average  ton- 
nage in  each  loaded  car  is  21,000  pounds,  or  420,000  in  each  freight  train  ; therefore, 
twelve  trains  would  haul  5,040,000  pounds.  To  run  twelve  trains  from  Kansas  City 
to  Denver,  distance  639  miles  (twelve  times  639  are  7,668  miles),  the  railroad  company 


pays  — 

Wages  of  locomotive  engineer,  miles  run $268 

Wages  of  locomotive  fireman,  miles  run 1 153 

Wages  of  conductor,  miles  run 191 

Wages  of  two  brakemen,  miles  run 230  842 


Total  amount  saved  in  wages  over  the  old  method $119,158 


Thus  we  find,  where  one  dollar  was  paid  to  labor  engaged  in  transportation 
in  1865,  to-day  labor  only  receives  seven  mills;  but  let  us  look  at  it  by  days’ 
work,  viz.: 


1865,  paid  250  teamsters’  wages  (one  year),  365  days  each 91,250  days. 

1890,  paid  train  crew  of  five  men,  wages  38  days  each 190  days. 

Total  number  of  days’  labor  saved 90,060 


In  other  words,  where  480  days’  labor  were  required  in  1865  to  transport  by 
the  old  method,  a stated  number  of  pounds,  to-day  (1890),  by  the  aid  of  ma- 


48 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


chinery,  one  man  in  one  day  will  transport  the  same  number  of  pounds.  But 
the  question  considered  by  the  People’s  Party  was  — 

Reasonable  Rates.— Are  the  rates  charged  the  citizens  of  Kansas  reason- 
able and  just?  Have  railroad  companies  kept  pace  with  the  improvement  of 
machinery?  What  are  their  profits,  under  the  rates  now  charged?  The  fol- 
lowing tables  have  been  prepared  without  bias,  prejudice,  fear,  or  favor;  the 
object  sought  has  been  facts,  to  enable  the  People’s  legislators  to  carry  out 
in  good  faith  the  mission  for  which  they  were  elected.  The  information  set 
forth  in  tabulated  form  will,  we  trust,  be  beneficial  to  all  concerned.  We  think 
it  fully  justifies  the  People’s  legislators  in  their  effort  to  reduce  transporta- 
tion taxes  imposed  on  the  people  of  Kansas  by  a foreign  syndicate  of  bond- 
holders, whose  ideas  of  government  are  preeminently  anarchical.  They  have 
representatives  in  Kansas  who  ignore  the  American  theory  of  government 
entirely.  These  representatives  of  the  foreign  syndicate  are  organized.  Their 
organization  in  Kansas  is  known  as  the  Trans-Missouri  Railway  Association. 
There  are,  in  the  United  States,  sixty-eight  similar  associations.  The  princi- 
ple governing  said  associations  is,  possibly,  best  described  as  anarchical-com- 
munistic— the  syndicate,  the  head  of  the  association,  being  anarchical;  * while 
the  associations  in  their  dealings  with  one  another  are  communistic.*f  In  their 
dealings  with  the  people,  the  latter  have  neither  laws  nor  rights  which  these 
associations  respect.  But  we  submit  the  tables  of  comparison,  etc.: 


♦Without  rule  or  government;  anarchic  despotism. — See  Webster.  f Webster  says  com- 

munism is  “ the  doctrine  of  a community  of  property,  or  the  negation  of  individual  rights  in 
property.” 


TABLE  I— ShowiDg  the  location,  by  States  or  Territories,  and  the  total  mileage  owned  or  operated  by  the  railroad  companies  name 
as  given  in  the  Report  of  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  ot  Kansas  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1890. 


TRANSPORTA  TION. 


49 


8 

Si 

£ 

§ 

e 

s 


,q3h-  >»d 
ea  co  "2  ^ 

& 2 5® 

id  a O fl 

° S ^ a 
H 2 © 03 

BM*jt 

O o O — 1 

w bX)  00  cS 
•rj  cs  « 
-Goo*-1 
© •-  *2  P 
>P  -P  © 


►*"<  a> 

• o 

„ 21  bfi 

kHc 
© ©■£ 

03 

© ^ X 

M ^ ^ © 

^ O gH 

^ o 2 

p * 

oQ  +5  Zh  <g  © 

^ - 03.0 

s*5 


Pm 

►;p 


PPTS  O 
03  P O 
03.® 
_ 'm  © 
Shh  p 
03  ^ 33 

o'©  ” 

PP  a&M 
3 

p.k  p 

ft  © CC 


o 

o 

a* 
v.  P 
©rs 


«8 


03  03 


o3 


o o 

c n cc 
<«  ;» 


P 


Joo 
c3  H-5 

a 

Occx 


•r  © p 

>3 

.3  °a  o o 

p =««p«a 

S-gog 

„.P  35  OS 

| J p p 

O ®.-2.2 

3 jp  a p 


Total  mileage 
operated 

MiOOCOOOOMItJIOiNN 
OOCOOlOOGCl^l^l-'r-OOlO 
ICC)  CD  O CO  CO  i-M  !>  1-M  Tfl  DU 

L , 330 
57 
125 
225 
5 , 148 

§ 
r— ' 
©“ 

CM 

Illinois 

294 

203 

© 

Tfl 

i H i 

Iowa 

O ; CO  . 

<m  : io  . 

: : : : m 

© 

00 

os  . os  : 

© — . © © : : 
c-  ic  t*i  co  : ; 

CM  — 1 CM  OO  ; . 

h : : : : 

00 

Missouri 

<m  ; i— i • 

Eo  i : i i 

TJI_ 

: i 

<M~ 

Arkansas.... 

» : : : ; : 

S | | j j 

Tjl 

© 

1-1  : : : ! : 

CO 

Indian  Ter...... 

£3  : i 

cm  : : 

. • K.  . . 

* : io  : : : 

: : <m  : : : 

2 ! N i 

692 

Texas 

121 



806 



17 

468 

Tfl 

*©« 

tH 

Kansas 

TjlMOOOOONCOOr^OOMC'MOlOH 
aO<M»OOOOOiO(MCO©CO---*COlO<McMCO 
TIC  i-M  CM  CO  CM  COCO  t-M  Tfl  nNM 

ICO 

© 

cm"  t-T 

H 

00 

Nebraska 

3 

141 

2,214 

: : : cm  Tie  © 

: : : <m  co 
: : : co  tii  ^m 

: : : : oo 

: : i : © 

3,881 

South  Dakota... 

1 : : os  : 

1 ; i 

49 

New  Mexico 

675 

1 ; M i i j ! M“ 

758 

Utah 

i : : i© 

CM 

© 

• i • • *p 

•O 

Wyoming 

59 

: : : :<n 

a a a • I> 

831 

: : : : i> 

Colorado 

© t-m  : 
(M  t'  (D  ; 

tji  co  co  : 

M is  i 

1 : 1 :S 

: : : : Ci. 

© 

io_ 

• • • 

• • • , 

• • • 

| | | jH 

cm" 

Montana 

LZl 

CM 

t-M 

Idaho 

: : : 

• • • • Oh 

Tfl 

© 

i : : : i> 

c— 

Oregon 

525 

Washington 

• ••••••«••  co 

• •••••••••  ^ 

432 

»••••••••••  • 

• ••••••••••  • 

.•••.•••••a  • 

• 

• «»•••»•*  i • • 

H(NMT)iiOOI>COi350H(NCOTjUC<fl 


OlONON 
0)010000) 
lO  <M  »0  <M  Tt< 

© CM  CO  CM  t-m 


£ 

0 

w 
H 
<1 
i-P 
P 
H 

i— i 

Pm 

1 

« M 


•rH  CQ 

Art 
n.  cq 

•tf1  fl 

5fl 

.2«m 


CO  • 
<X>  • 


<«-p  5 

©•M'H 

• ^ P ^ 

2 «8  w ‘S 

O £ 

O CO 
ft  -J-J  'x 

potJ.2 
F 

S-l  (U 

^ F 

^ O S+j 
_ m x 
, 03  (M  ^ <<-, 

1|33° 

ft  33 , t» 

m3  175 

©^  03  P © 
P « 2 S a 

«_  “ S3  03  2 

o9-“«.S 

w c3  ?H  rtj  ^ 

S5.S.S.S 

© © © © a> 

00  bO  be  bC  ao 

03  03  eS  c3 
© © © © © 

SSiiS 


© o3 
© 

P 


>> 

o3 

j* 

*P 

« 

PH* 


o 

Ph 

© 


TABLE  I-A— Showing  the  location  by  States  or  Territories,  and  the  total  mileage  owned  or  operated  by  the  railroad  companies  named, 
as  given  in  the  Report  of  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Iowa  for  the  year  ending  June  30, 1889. 


50 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Total  mileage 
operated 


C©C00500Thl^-t0O  05  05l00000*0t'~<M 
oicootoiNWiooomiocoriCOHr-io 

lH  T*  »C  ^ CO  T-I  t-T 


Indiana. 


Illinois. 


Michigan. 


Wisconsin 


Missouri. 


Iowa 


tH  CO  00  CO  CO  <M 
05  1-H  r-  CO  CO  05  t— 
(N05  10(N(NH 


O i-H 
i—i  lO 
CO  05 


05  o : to  oj 

1-1  TjH  -ooOO 

HH  : <M  <N 


Tf  N 
lO  t— 
<M 


OOlOOlOCO^OOOOCOHHi-NOa 

OO^t-IOHO  tH  ICS  1-1  1-1 


Minnesota 


Kansas. 


Nebraska 


Dakotas. 


Wyoming. 


Colorado 


ICS  05 
-i  lO 


GO  GO  • 

23’ 


a 

o 


.2  Oh 

g ® ® acy 


O cS 

yi  — • "ri  CO 

S sus 

p a? 
p p 

^ w ^ a £>*“° 
® 


o 

►»«« 


g . ®0D  3 g 

>1  — £ o n ^ P-i  ^ « 


bC—  OOOOOOCS 

p cS  bobCbJObCbCbfibCcr'aS  P 


.H^StSCCCStjSSlKMp^HS 

73  £ -2 .2 .a .2.2.2 .2 -2  a o a g P'2 

P OJP3P3P3P1P1P3P3  3 <5  ® £ 9.2^ 

woujuuuuuflMWSoco^ 


Mileage  west  of  the  west  line  of  Kansas 725 

Mileage  in  Kansas,  Nebraska  and  Dakotas 6,138 

Mileage  in  Minnesota,  Iowa  and  Missouri  west  of  Mississippi  river 11,692 

Mileage  in  Wisconsin,  Michigan,  Illinois  and  Indiana  west  of  the  Mississippi 
river 6,471 


TRANSPORTA  TION. 


51 


* Vi 

~ o 

^ f-i 
i c« 
03  O 
v 03 
> 0) 
©pa 

xn  h— 

©*♦- 
pa  ° 


so  ^ 

g« 

Sg 

2 a 
& a 

►a 

<s  £ 

a 2 


“»'o 

© i-h  03 

>*.,0  00 


®H0- 

- P ® 

pa  .5  p 

cS  T3  3 

© ®Vh 

bo  © ^ 

V.  © bC 
03  fl 

pa  ft-9 
"o’S 

8"  3 

so  P r. 

SS$ 

» » ® 
KflG3rP 
OX)  ,*j 

.2®^ 

■*■>  3^® 

03  cj  ^ 
^ to  so 
© et3 
a©  m 

©pa  p 

t*  ^ $ 
P bC^ 
c3  R^ 
t»®  O 

2*3 

a’ga 

3g.g 

3 §2 

■»&* 

- so 

Vi 

„ © 
©•-IQ 

a a I 


© 


rPT=!  3 • ^ 

SlHS3 

a a 03  s 2 O 

* a g o3  3^ 
aioog^p 
PQ^Q  w 


Per  centum. 


©OMN©CON«MOt'PTH0iMTj< 

I0^^05(N«M©(N®NthO10I0© 

HtCHNIOHt'N^INOOlOOOM 

{o^io^'tC5tOHoanootDib05t^ 
•^CO©COOO©<MSO— '<NtOSOC3COl.^aO 
SO  CO  -sf  CO  Tjn  —I  1-1  03  CO  lO  Tt<  tP 


tH  i-H  CO  r-H 


Mao  g 

dJ-rH  CO  =2 

g2|| 

o ©5 


gs« 

© p r-H 

p %s 

© ftTJ 

o ^ P 


h!  » P S 

3 2-3.2 

3 ^22 

'di  c3  o 

3 -M  r-j 

© blOi! 

CJ  p ® p 

•lH  P-W 


, g 

® °a  « 

IIP 

Ctf  S.2-T3 

»S§£ 


• 'd'd  ©*  S 

®°P®c3 


fl  © 
.2  © 


w — 

>5  oS 
^ P 


§=  = 
§&!■§ 
*25 


Commissioners,  Re- 
port, page 


220.2- 
® © p2 
H 9 !3^ 

'*->  p p 

© ” 


Commissioners’  Re- 
port, page 


soiM-fasi'-O'sttas'M'^ossoos— <o^h 

I-  ^ © in  - icoqogooojossoosqoooo 

lC©HOJ©«05'-t>CO®fflOOOJ> 


CHOOdNOOMHiHH-^fflOHM^ 
O^O'NtHfHHSO-trtUOOMiltOl-' 
l-  <M  CO  l©  MHHICIO^'#  SO 


eOtNOOl^^ti— '(NHOMIO^OICIM® 
lOI'*C0O3'— lOSTt'OI  CO  l©  SO  !-+,CO  Ttt  -H  lO 
W»t'0(NO®iO©  f-*0  W N M (N  N 


Tjl^HiNfqHCOlN'HiNOOHeOMffl 

so  so  co  Tt<  so  t"  ci  uo  ^ so  o 

1-1  H <N  <M  CO  <N  so 


eoioooioi-io©©coo5's|ttcHHO 

mMsoo^^-oo'tci^tHHtHO 

lOWiOOOrrlOOCOiOCOHOJifCOO 


SDO3i-lO3SOC0t-O3Tt'f~i-lTtHl©t^<NC© 

so-^iasQoeoi>-'^<x»ooi—  io  —<■ >h  <m  co  co 

<Ml©CO<M  O t-  SO  <M  (M  (M  03 

TjT  a H (N»  i-l  CoT 


HO)T)<©'^(NOlOOi^»f'(N's(<©(N 

HOINNOOOOOHOOOMINMHil 

SOC©t^C0O3O3SO©©O3t^C©C0O3U0t~ 


H-HlOTf^TjlOiMHHCHtHlOHHH 

OOOt-rtOHNCOOC-O  t-I  t— 

co  ci  O r-  O th  oo 


OiSO<MTj<'^(SOOqi003i-lt^-'r^SO'stta>CO 

t^t>-^lOt^O3lOTtllO<M03t^SOO3l^-r-H 

©r'^iOiOMHtH(N'-<t^©iOClM© 

r'-<MO3C^Tl«O3C0SO'*O3»©l©l>a3SO© 

oi  co  in  h ci  ^ r—  oo  o co  th  h so 
wcoinh  o eoeoH  i©  cn 


CO  P-*  O O t"—  O O IO  03  C3  H GO  r-H  tH  CO  Tfl 
^©CiOlOOf'O-HTfOKNtHlOWH 
«NHCONHrHd(N(N(NCOlMXMm 


rjHC<U'-SOCOCOSOC<ll©Tt<S©l©C©I> 

C0©»tHT}U0H03(NOM«OM 

!>-Tj(C0C<IC003t^00i-iS0a3S0S0O 


CV|  UO 
CO  so 
O 03 


SOSOCOt^(Mt>-©<MC0O3O3SOSOt'-< 
SOC-  — UOSCOO^fMOSOr-ISOC^t-- 
CO  © t>»  GO  i-H  C—  04  CO  Tf*  00  © OO  i-H 


r-ISC00O3SO00O3C©SOCO©t'-©CO<NT-H 
Tt<COCQ03l©l©S©©  — TfHa3<Mr^l©GOTH 
CONrH(NIMnrHiN(Mcq(NCO(NCO(NM 


fp 

cd^Q? 


Ph’w‘^ 

*=&®*e4 


Ph 

f>dc» 


a . 


Eh*MPQ  3 ci  ^ a w c-=^,-3h4  O ©D-ipi 
^OOO^'M  M S S d OQ  QQ  OQ  H P P 


!NCO'si<UO©t^GO©©TH<MCO'^lOy5 


w O ©p 
.2  '*■'  s-T 

P CG  ^ © 

1 3 j« 

o >>  P ^ 

S'hO 

r a ftP4^ 

© 2 S © 
J* 

•2  o *2  03 

2 ^ pa 

^ ©’be© 

ips 
5a  i* 

- S3  &$ 


© 00 


■rp  'd 


► aH  « 
«°..  o 
^ T3  T3.  03 
© © a © 
fe  p Prb3 
3-^  C3 
© © g •*■* 

s o. 
2©^  a 

NP«3 
- . P 
w P p 
bO© 

22-8 

das 

g 


g3 


© © Hp 

5*2  5:0  2?  'd 


/TJ  ^ 


£ 


© © 
so  © © 2: 

© rP  03 

be© 
a 

P r.  V I 

© - © og 

P 

-|.g  oS  s 

2%'Z  *3  ft 

§?=I2f 

•rH  03  <— I ^ -*-3  nH 

2 ..  OS 
3 03  ©^2  § W 
O-Q  *3  CIS  S 03 

g>s  |>©s  s 

•gpgfc'ts 

bo"-1  © c3  ® ® 

g-2  3 © p^ 

o’S  83 '03  gcg 

^ p*d®  3 „ 

© OQ  -d  rJi  >»  OS 


ftp 


5ar|S« 

a 


©Hv.  — 

g-°  .og 

sp  03  P •-•■= 
P Vi  O © rP 
P®D®hO 

- ^ 2-2  ®i« 

^d  ftdj  T-I 

® "2  -M 

Vi  pa  h 

© to  ^ m 


TABLE  II- A — Showing  the  freight  earnings  and  operating  expenses  chargeable  to  freight  traffic,  with  net  balances,  of  the  several  rail- 
roads named,  the  mileage  covered  being  the  same  as  given  in  preceding  Table  I-A,  as  shown  in  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Board  of 
Railroad  Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Iowa  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1889. 


52 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


~ • 1 
J O n Cj 


go  p ag 

- -P  as  — < o 


cs  o o>  a 
M-o  a 


CC00rJHiN10t0O©l0NQ«MNTfif'(N 

iC(NO50H(01000MtHMC0-ih05O 

OCdeO-t^(MrtCO-<NO<N^lOO- 


OiMONosocooiooiotocOrHin^ 
[^©NOOOOOin^WlO^OONOHN 
t~lNICOHOil>COOJ«M  TfrtHO! 


«OI>OON  1-t 


Per  centum. 


SO  g 

a>  2 

so 


a 

SH  a~ 

o ?!  © O 

H o ft"3 
ax  a 

o ©5 


(NU!(OtOOlNOOClONOa)000(NCN 

SO'^l-'^COSOlO'-N'^OM’^COMOO 

t'tOMHO>iONMOMOOOmoOH® 


OX»-^H^«®®NCOOOOOOI>N 

CO(N®ON®N«OC>©0010(M!NiOtO 

«NCCKOlO(N»(£MNlO005OlNiO(MHffl 


O O O lO  rH  1-1  (M 


3j  0)  *2 

5 CO  ,2 

o a —i 

p 2.2 
o 

C * a 

Q L-J 


A « a e 
o a o cs 

'C  £ d o 

o ^ 2 
o 3 a.5 


CO^'OOtOU5COOO®a5CON®NO 

-l0(NMOl0100i©0)1'®Q0®0>N 


OJldNOONCOOlOHN-HlOOlOOIN 

N®-HN05IOlO00HONC01O^mO 


tJHSTJ— i^tt(NM®NQ0O®5ir300h. 
(MSOlOitlN-iOsm^COMOOGS^H 


00Xij<MI0C0OHQ0iHt-(N05N®l» 
Q0«51>r^-Q0Mi-it-WI>OC}^05J0 
lO  CO  O O CO  05  05  CO  <M  CO  iH  rH  1-1  CO 


lO  CO  1C  <N 


o a 


© P22 

© 5 o 


« S.s4 


^ p 


O 1—1 


T^osoO'^Tfeccoooioi-tiot^cocoiooj 

t-COCOlO-*COOSCOi-<r^t'-lO©COtOCO 

CCOOOMOt^COCOOlOCO^lOCOOlOJ 


MCOt^^CO>N!OMCOOiCOOOO-i’# 

i^cccocciOTTOiHioiNrocoaoMMco 

HH00NI>O5CClH.*OH  Ti< 


. SO  GO 

• T5  0>  fn 


a>  o 


2 o * -2^ 

3 g £ = 

S p £ 5 a 


Commissioners’  Re- 
port, page 


$ 60.2  = 


H.S  S' 


Commissioners’  Re- 
port, pige 


-HMNOlONHrllOlOIO^OOO-l 

COaOiOO)OOOHOinoOOO®Offi 

t-<MX>co<N©<N-^eocsaococs«oeoco 


05©C0Oe0C0C0<M<N-H©a0aS0S00<M 
C5CO©<MtOt-C0  1OCO©TtU^0O<M<MCO 
M(NrH050(N^H®(NH  1-t  CO 

C<f  r-Tof  H N 


©'MOJOqcq-HOS'ctt^OOQOCOCOt^tMlO 

©TjHCOOOOl>-COC<JTHlOOOCOaOiO-*© 

!-!HCON(NHCOM®CC^T)iTjtlO®t^ 


lOt>OOOtOOOCOTttC-t-OOTO©©t^05 

-Hr^^©t-IM©Oi0l0'^-H!005MT)t 

OOOJOMMOO'tt>i-t^COMI>'ctt(NCO 


OOtOt^SSfMCOOCO  — iHTtttO^ONH 
-^<MCOCO©C-0O©rH<MCO?C»O»0Ot^Ttt 
©i-KMtO'cft-fO©rfiO?©CO©M(M© 


NHNM»»Nn^Hrt 


r^©COCOOOOO©-^©'rtlCOi-l©»005(N 
©-^lOOit^COGO(MrtUOCOCO0O»O©© 
1— 11— lOOl— toil— ICOCOCOCO^fTftTt^lOCOt- 


C5 

£ 

!^.  !p! 

d 

M 

-8 

“8 

O 

— 1 

=8 

=8 

* 1 
Q 

13 

— 

«8°8^jh 

d 

d 

d 

GO 

d 

m 

ao 

CO 

=8 

PQ 

O 

d d d d 

d 

d 

d 

d! 

rH 

co 

OS  O 1-MM 
1-H  (M  <N  <N 

?o 

(N 

rft 

<N 

10 

<M 

CO 

'^CB  “8  . 


2 © 

A P 

<D  O 
3-  bD 


TI'O 

.2  P 


o so 

2^ 

3 © 

«j§ 

a©  2 

«SS* 

18^8 

03  /in  i 


-O  fl 


CO  T3 


H2 

a p a 


'®5§  p 
3 s £ 
^2:  o 


M a 

(a  5 


© — .» 

2*2  >-< 
5 O o 
o mS 
CJ  ft*^ 


<u 


|-a-r  g 

gg6*  ° 

a 


X.  S-  cS  "i 


„ o Sh 

bc*j  ft£  © 

""“-g 


pco  g 
’*£>©  ^ 
o CO 

a > "d  ® 

<—1  00  ^ a»  +2 
OP  - L.  3 

^ §i?  S g 

os 


o 

p © 

25  bfi 


o O 


o ft 


§D^  ft 

Q?P  ° 


03  BQ 

© « o w S 

scgf  && 

&ssa 

■8  8-g-g 


a)  o 

QQ  >■ 

® +J  o 

•S  5r, 

fcJO 


aRi-s§ 

BP  © fti  .2 


0 

*2  'H  *1 
Poo 


eS  P 


«2 
© .2 

O ^ 
o 


©O'©  5dt3 

t»*S 

zi  -— 

o 


— o o^ 
> ^p  -p  0 
p 

P.2 

Qj  W 

^ A 

03 


Ofto 


TABLE  III  — Showing  the  mileage  of  the  principal  railroads  in  Kansas;  the  cost  of  carrying  one  ton  of  freight  one  mile;  average- 


TRANSPORTA  TION. 


53 


0 © 
* ® 
3 bp 
- ® 

s S 

sg 

H <1? 

D & 
^© 
3o5 

a t" 


iCco 

3*1 

-S 
Sg 
* § 

h &n  . 

3 j;  ® 

© '3*3 

a a a 
o © © 

j ^ fl 
© to  o 

g © g 

2 53 

“ 50 
-1  TO<P 

H 50 

°g“ 

□ TO  .2 

oM  a 
2 

d o 3 
U 3n  ^ 

® © o 

2 2 5 
■do 
® 8 ® 

s*!? 

§a* 

83®- 

© *d 
WOT?  g 
to  ^ ” 

!hO» 

<v  f-  a 
o 

to  to  .3 
-&A 
3«m.SP 

§£■£ 
©2 
~ §o 

3w  a 

p 

25  © 

p*g  § 

O O w 

c3^>  bX) 

0)  fl 
^ 0*H 

TO  a o 

-P-5  n 

® p5 

© a? 

P 

■SU'g 

to  O 

38p, 


Freight  earnings  per 
train  mile 

N 

MOQ0t0^HMO(0(N©00©O05^  1 

WIOf'0)l''OiHOHOMO»OOH(N  ) 

oocoH^cot^^^ot-ooi>aoh'io  1 

0.26 

1.26 

1 

HCOO®NO)HOMDM»TfTfOOH  1 
lO<NlOMrt^^TO©Q0rH»O'-'©'^M  ! 

82 

80 

3 

28 

1 

Profits  percentage  for 
carry  ing  one  ton  of 
freight  one  mile4... 

Profit. 

— < CO  CO  QO  50  05  O <N  CO  — < CO  05  <M  <N  CO 

t'®l>lOOlOO<N«IO(M05T-iOO(NN 

tH  rH  tH  CO  i— 1 t— ! 

15.02 

.94 

Average  receipts  per 
ton  for  each  ton  of 
freight  carried  one 
mile 

N 

asoto^iNMHOOioooosinoocs® 

(Nt'OO^TOIOOHTt'n^MMO^CO 

HlOTONMOod^OWMINlOMbiH 

7.87 

5.49 

« 1 

rlrl  ; H W IrtHrlriHHMONH 

24 

1 

Cost  of  carrying  one 
ton  of  freight  one 
mile 


Cost  of  running 
freight  train  one 


0(M©COO®C00005®05HH(NHO 

rH 

©iO©TOlO^N(NCOWrH^r|(N(NiH 

<M 

o 

®05icr'rHiodo)t'0®®oo<NOO 

00 

CO 

# 

* * * * wH  • • • • rH  • • • v—i  rH  * 

<M 

o 

tH 

©Nr)i05(NOHin^'-i'^^05^(NTH 

23 

0510®hO(NC>OIC!I>CO<N®®^0 

CO©dlOOOodlOCO'>tt^©N«»©N 

<N 

<D«CMl0ril0'^05  00O(N^l0Th'^«0 


^ 1 

: : i • rH  : ;hhhh  : : th  : th 

l© 

Average  distance 
carried  each  ton 
of  freight 

Miles. 

CO0Oc©O5lOTt<r^t^i-ICO©Ttli©<NTj<co 

i©t- (COTO'Tfit— 05C0C0?D<N^— (COTO,C>**0 
WNrlH  t1  <N  tH  rH  (N  <M 

2,365 

148 

Length  of  line  oper- 
ated  

Miles. 

MffiOODOOO^^fflMMOOWlCOO 
QO©0!OOOOtrr-trHOOlOCOiO<N<N'^ 
>0«50?0  to  rr  fr  H OJ  CO  h!NH 

-T  ib  A co  i-T  o 

26,100 

1,631 

Commissioners’  Report, 
1890  2 

Page. 

cooomincopi(N©howhn®hoo 

Tfi  OO  05  O lO  CO  O (N  i©  05  CO  UO  CO  »h  : 

M(NHCO(NHHCq(NN(NCONW(NTO  ; 

—3 


>©  1 5*  ® 

03  a)  h 2 
^ 2§i£ 

<g  ©=3  a 

5 1<p 

® oi  fl  j 

o 

p § 
a-M.”S 

o o O^-. 
to  bfi  bfi  TO 

•d  os  °s  b 

© •«-•  -h  c 
-•jl-PrP  © 
<!OfaO 


.S^ 

w, 

2 § a 

S 

?-(  © d 

oco  ©o« 
fa  *a  2 ^ 

>°s 

g^M 

flfaSfa 

O 50  50  S 

3 to  to  o 
p g g TO 
H 03  TO  *H 


A 
© 
a 

r©  j 2 
O 

TO 


© 

.2  © a _ 

gflSlS-i 

dS 

12pSl«i«j„ 

® cj 

'■£  TO  ®*§  §®^ 

o-doog^gg 

’^OoQffiwHPP 


® p 

i’E* 

® TO 
§® 
a © 
o ^ 
-*-*  « 
© o 
a ® 

® so" 

S® 

•<H  qi 
>%© 
?H  © 

b * 

O © 

<2  *p 
© g 
-s  2 
8 5 

©rC 
A © 
^'u 

© TO 
- © 
o'  ® 

05  © 

co  a 
^ TO 

p TO 

p^ 
© © 
t>  bO 

’Sc  S 

^ S 

p b 

as 

2^ 

too 

TO 

© 

2.<! 

05 
CO 
CO 

T I 

.© 


a 

a 

o 

O 

© 

© 

fH 

© 


<MCCTO<»O<©I>a0O5©i— MMCOT*IO«5 


TABLE  III-A — Showing  the  mileage  operated,  the  cost  of  running  freight  train  one  mile,  and  cost  of  carrying  one  ton  of  freight  one 
mile,  by  the  railroad  companies  named,  as  shown  by  “Statistics  of  Railways  in  the  United  States,”  report  of  Henry  C.  Adams, 
statistician,  to  the  Inter-State  Commerce  Commission,  June  30, 1889;  also,  showing  the  average  distance  hauled  each  ton  of  freight, 
and  average  receipts  for  each  ton  of  freight  carried  one  mile,  Report  of  the  Railroad  Commission  of  Iowa,  June  30,  1889;  also, 
showing  the  profits  for  carrying  one  ton  of  freight  one  mile. 


54 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Profits  percentage 
for  carrying  one 
ton  one  mile 

£ 

(N(N(NIOtfiOCOOOlOOilOOO(NOI> 

socoeocot^io^Mt^eocot-coTfHOfM 

875 

VJ 

CO'' 

M 

1C 

i* 

© 

Average  receipts 
per  ton  for  each 
ton  carried  one 
mile..., 

N 

i 

toot^r'050(00«oOHO-<io^o 

Ot^OJtflHt^OOiaMHMNOtCOON 

COO  r.  OOOSOOOJr-iiN^OCONrfCO 

4.21 

88*0 

' A1 

1 

■mm  : m m : ; :mmmmm  ;m  : 

6 

M 

§ 

Average  distance 
carried  each  ton  j 
of  freight 

Miles. 

103DCO*0^100IO»<NtDNOOM 

COMt-OtOOSCSMtOfMCOtOCSOMr- 

M M M 03  M M M ©3  M M M M 

2,249 

140 

ft 

! <! 
M 

H 

Commissioners’ 
Report,  1889 j 

Page. 

ODf'OOMMOMMlO^OONINtXN 

MNOMCJt'OlMlOO^OOOtO-M 

MMaiNlNMCOCOtOCOTf^^lOtOts 

H 

w 

M 

Cost  of  carrying 
one  ton  of  freight 

*1 

NNNOOIOCI&MMIOCSMINOIOIO 

0000t0©IO!D{03L!0(»O(0M(5«)ffl 

3.18 

7.07 

w 

ft 

one  mile 

_ . i 

tH 

1 

IS 

^ 1 

It  j i i 1 ! ! 11  MM! 

- 

o 

& 

Cost  of  running 
freight  train  one 
mile 

N 

f00^5)NlO©00iU0  03^CNO00 
^00«3O1005M05C0OI>C0»0CCMCnI 

Wo  Mt^M(NiOOMlOiO«OC<ioOCO)CO 

0.59 

3.37 

Mm 

1 ai  »o -m  co  o as  m oo  oc  oo  m — i oo  o o t- 
1 J-tooasosr^-oOMooosi^ior-T-.t-coo 

75 

98 

o : : : : : m : : ; m : m j m m 

^ : 

▼H  • 

Length  of  line 
operated  

© 

!£ 

!OCOO!OOTHNOOOiOSlOOOQO>ON(M 

itMlCNlOlOMWOOOMTftO^OO 

OlOOOOCNOklOOOCOkOCOMCOMMO 

M M'lo'TjTco'  M M 

to  M 
CM  to 
O lo 

03 

StafisHnal  R.pnort  1889 

-^lacococococouoiokOt-t-cococoM 

comooooosoommm(mcoo*o 

x — 7 — 

€ 

u 

a>  . 
P-M 

Pm 
® ® 
u .o 
O ce 

-2  P 
'5  'p 

^1 

<d  a 

G3  n 
u 'P 

as  eS 

► O 

a jh 


AP 
a o 


o 5 

I 

Ho 

O s* 

£ ft 

P 


I 


W 

oi 

W 


a> 

P £ 
o o 

-*J  M 

tc, 

a ee 

• iH  ?H 

1h 
p QJ 

wo 


g e8 

.2  ft 

P • 


5j5  M 


: : ci 

: :w 

: : I 

i io 

.w 

j3 

j ^ 

w 

.2  W .2 

r— 1 

2°o 

l§& 

‘3 

p 

p 

o 

V°§fl 
ft  p s p • -2 

p . 


'CO 


« S >8  03  m 8 S' * g « 3 * 

0*0*0  o'©  OO  3 
bCbC&D&C&CtiCbccr'aS  P ® 2 . . ” 

.2 .2  .2 .2 .2 .2  ^ do  a ^ p -p 

22222pp  3^  a-2 1.2> 
oooooooQMWSOc»£> 


54 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


© of  o' 

a gam 
° 

© ... 

®d'ss 

*n  b o' 
'a  £ 

O P -*- 
© Dh  © 2 

M C<3  © 

©%  «*■* 
© °T3  - 

©■£©"* 

IIP 

s_  „ © o 

u -- w ® 
(S  f fl  fl 
© © o3  © 

©^£i 

OJ  „ H 

8^  §>a 

M.t2  g O 

p a ©O 

*P5-d 

© © 0)  o 

w w -p  s_l 

a 

,..  a &c  c3 
§-.2« 
° £>  © 
a £25 

gw 

^lo0 


o3 


05  O 

£ °®  §< 

* SSrt 

b£-3  - 

.S  .2  ©'•S 

’2  *+3  CO  . 

© ® 2 © p 
*=  ^ P 8 

O rl  _i  W 

lips 

SllSS 

s«a|« 

_T  32  O , 

% 13  O M'S 

■1'gSSfl 

la  l^2 

og|*§ 

© a 2 © 
bC  co  o © 

™®o  5f 
iS*q  ©,a.2 
'J8  5? 
8a^  2 8 
5 8SS2 

bfi^d  fl  go  4m 

£Wja  ©?q 

03  U 3 U A 
I © ..  © © 

U P ^ 

< c3  g m 

t!^S£“ 

M®-2S'S 

a=s*o 

! r© 


aid 


w 3 -2 

W d OT 

H 


Profits  percentage 
for  carrying  one 
ton  one  mile 

Profit. 

N(N(NIO0OM®IOffllCOOlNOI> 

©CO^XlNlO^VOMtOt^X'^qN 

875 

54% 

Average  receipts 
per  ton  for  each 
ton  carried  one 
mile 

N j 

?OONNMO!0©«XH0^1C^O 

OI>05COHI>X>ONHMNOCCXOJ 

co©  r.©©a)®©HM^©Mt^^x 

4.21 

0.88 

hh  : m m ; : : m ; 

17 

1 

Average  distance 
carried  each  ton  j 
of  freight 

Miles. 

iotocoao©Mio©iooo<M©r^a>©M 
OTHI>0!COJ03HtD(NX(0050^l> 
MMMC<lT-HT-(r- 1 (N  H H r- 1 tH 

2,249 

140 

1 

Commissioners’  ! 

Report,  1889 

Page. 

Xt'OlOMNWHMlO'^XMNMM 
ri(N!OHC>l--0)«10tO^(0»tO"H  l 

rHHWNlNHCOCOCOM'O^^ICKON  ; 

Cost  of  carrying 
one  ton  of  freight 
one  mile 

N 

<Mt^t^COlO©63MCOlO©M<N©lOlO 

©©i-iMO^rHMMt^lOCfN-^C^M 

OO  00  © CO  10  © © © to  OO  © © !>•  1©  00  © 

3.18 

7.07 

^5 

l~  i 

Cost  of  running 
freight  train  one  j 
mile 


-gOOT^Cr5<MlO«5-OT*U0  05^0I>000 
gaO©©lOOMCiCOI>I>COiO©'^CM 

fto  ^h-HNU50H10iO©N©COM 


Length  of  line 
operated 


©lO^MOifflH«XCOH-i©ffiON  I 1C 
S-i  00  05  05  t"»  CO  t— I GO  05  C"  lO  t"  t— < t>-  CO  © It" 


tH  ; y—i  t-H 


Statistical  Report,  1889. 


COffOOiCOThlt^COOClOSlOOOOOlOt^CN 

TtlrHlOt>IOinHM»OJr-i^tOT)(00 

01CX©(NbnOX«iOWHWHHO 


^ : 

rH  • 

© 

tJ4 

CM 

© 

©^ 

w 

A 

M 

CM 

Miococoeococo*oioiot^t-~cococoM 

<Oi-lOO©®a5®©T-lr-irH<NCC©»0 


© 

rO 

-U 

o 

£ 

«8 

X 

3* 

ft 

C<3 

W 


>»  3 
2 * 
.2^ 


©3 

e6 

2 

o 

© 2 ±3  ® 

2‘ab^ 

II s* 


§8-1* 


03  2^5 


3J 

© 

o 

a* 
© © 
-u 

a fs 

• r-H 

f-H  W 

2 © 
s a; 

WO 


gJilS'SsT’jSSgSa 

Illi^^Sl 

m S ^ M ISSj  g « 3 ® ££ 

000  0'0p0Sa)^c3  .G© 
bDbfibCbObCbObDa'Ss  3 © 2 . . « 
cSoSoSoicScScSqSjMqWHaS 

.© .2  .w  .2 .2 .2 .2  -©  © © a 04  © "° 

2 2 3 2 2 w 2 © ^ $ w 3 .2  > 

OOOOOOOWWM^Occ£> 


© 

be 

03 

5h 

© 

> 

< 


«a 

© 

!h 

ft 

© 

be 

cs 


2S 

a 

u 

© . 
ftt-H 

Pm 

®iS 

u£2 
© c3 

©«H 

2 a 

ft,rH 
‘S  *© 
© © 
S 3 


n 

<3  Ctf 
> © 
03  ^ 

© *S 


ft© 
a © 


o 53 

i.  ? 

-3! 

q 

03 


TABLE  IV—  Showing  the  tuituhef  of  employes  io  the  various  departments  of  the  railroad  companies  1 


Name  of  railroad  company  in  Kansas  system. 


Atchison,  Topeka  & Santa  F6  1 

Chicago,  Kansas  A Western  2 •. 

Manhattan,  Aluia  & Burlingame  2 

Wichita  & Western  2 

B.  & Mo.  R.  Div.3  — Atchison  & Nebraska  4 

Beaver  Valley  4 

Chicago,  Neb.  & Kas.*.. 
Hep.  Val.,  Kas.  & S.  W.4 

Chicago,  Kansas  & Nebraska4 

Hutchinson  & Southern 

Kansas  City,  Fort  Scott  & Memphis 

Kansas  City,  Clinton  & Springfield 

Kansas  City,  Wyandotte*  Northwestern... 

Missouri, Kansas*  Texas4 

Missouri  Pacific 

Central  Branch  Union  Pacific 

St.  Louis  & San  Francisco 

Uniou  Pacific  b 


Totals.. 


MAINTENANCE  OF  ' 

S’ 


siKcci  ri;s. 


MAINTENANCE  OF  EQUIPMENT. 


CONDUCTING 


FiL . 


1,720 

3,161 


1,780 

5,273 


Name  of  railroad  company  in  Iowa  system. 


TABLE  IV- A. 


Central  Iowa..  

Chicago,  Burlington  & Quincy 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  & St.  Paul 

Chicago  A Northwestern 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  & Pacific 

Chicago,  Santa  F6  A California 

Chicago,  St.  Paul  & Kansas  City 

Chicago,  St.  Paul,  Minneapolis  * Omaha.. 
Dubuque  & Sioux  City.. 

Kansas  City,  St.  Joe  & C 
Keokuk  * Western.. 

Minneapolis  & St.  Louis.. 

Omaha  & St.  Louis 

Sioux  City  * Pacific 

Wabash  Western 


i Council  Bluffs... 


7,571 


198  16,880 


,319  ].. 


! S.ee  note,  page  335,  Kansas  Report  for  1890,  mileage  operated 
entir^Hne^  ,r°m  the  n“mber  of  emP,oy^s  reported  on  page  l 
3 Only  men  employed  on  line  in  Kansas  reported. 

6 Include  ^237°^"°^  ^ansas  **ailroad  Commissioners  for  the  year  ending  Ju 


the  latter  embraces  the 


} operated  under  trackage  rights.  (See  page  321.) 


0 Deducted  from  the  number  employed  reported  on  page  221,  as  the  latter  embraces  the  entire 

Note.— The  page  refers  to  number  of  men  employed,  nnd  the  average  daily  wages;  however, 
when  the  compiler  knew  the  monthly  wages,  or  the  amount  per  mile  paid  traiu  men,  he  cor- 
rected accordingly.  In  this  connection,  it  is  proper  to  remark,  that  tables  relating  to  labor  m 
Kansas  reports  are  of  little  value. 


TABLE  Y — Showing  the  gross  earnings  from  operating  the  railroads  named,  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1890,  as  given  in  the  Annual 
Report  of  the^Railroad  Commissioners  of  Kansas  for  the  year  ending  as  first  above  stated. 


TRANSPORTA  TION. 


55 


«r 

— a 

c3  P a *42 

H s'-  §, 


«r 

WO.® 


I 

<X>  O 


U ~ ~ 

2 .2  -a  ® 

^ 3 « h o - 

O ‘H  « f-i  hn 


03  fe  73  03 

« « ° « 


■pHCO''3<COCO*-<a>COCOCO<M<N'-iaO''tfCO 

M^NOWIOH'jiO®e9«05NH(N 

rjiTfiThin-oiococooii-HCOQoasouoco 

03  00  ooV  co%-Tco  cn  ^ <n~oo  r-T©  10(0  00 

OOMHOINlOOJejHN’HtOCOlOIN 
lO  O N 1H  M o M 5000NIN<OH1-I(NM 


Z bCP 

o*s  ® 

£3  © 


qJ  ao 

^ tm5*  > 

© p P^J 

5 go  I 
a® 


o 
of  © 

bfi  - 
03  «3 
&C“ 
bD® 
® ft 
^ H 
© 


-5  bO  ; 


5 P 


!-(©■— laOt'-COt'-lOCit-iCOlOlOO'SOOlO 
OH^MM«0«Cr)i05CCfflOtOTt<rJ(0 
ot^THco^-ioooocoioot^oic^fMas 

«T  CO~  aTt>T  of  ^ttT  cT  rjT  CO~  o'er  co"  of  th 
OJtOHH  ©(NHCO  CO  Tfi  O lO 

CO  CO  r-l  <M  © i-l  Til 


t'~COCOCOCOC<|lO'TflCOlOCOt^C^iO 

COO^COHOINOINOOOCOCOCD 

C0<MC0Cit>Q0i-<COO3COCO©©ai 


CO  CO 
CO  t- 
CO  o 


CONNKO(NNPOiCOCOI>CO-H 
HlOCOOO'^INlOCOrHCOMO'tCO 
l^OdHt>C<COTfl!!OOQOrt  t-I  r-i 


cjocooNfflcoNaiooicot^^^o 

t-0<Mt^TflTtiC000003C00300<MCO 

C^^t^THC0C0'TiOrr''<tf<MT-i'<tiTt<C0ia 

<n  wo  ~ ~ co%h  co^o"©  ®f©V~cf ao  <m 

ONlOCOHCOril^Q'^'fa  r-1  i-l 
-riN  H COCO  <M 


Report  of  Kansas 
Commissioners.. 


g 


t'OoarHOco^cocoacocooococo 
H W (N  H.CO  ^OONMCOOMlO-a 
Tfoodac^oocoMacoiocoat'^'H 

<M03lO'-<03i-tt^'cOQOt^lo''cO»OTt'UO<M 
''3’OJtOOOC'J— it^00Tf<CX)C0O3(MC0C0t^ 
COl-»HH  Oi  IXOINHN  CM 


TH®Q0ac000ffiW!0»ONOC0(NH 

'tooooaiciocoOHT}ta(NNioooH 

COMrt(N(NHr-i(NMM<NCO(NCO(NCO 


■ t>>  d 


pO  cpj 

vx>  ***  © • a*  Sf 
Cij  os  2 'O  >>  9 2 
^.2  o 2w  s 

5§3iSarg-§ 

os  ^ 0 H ® «a  0) 


®_J  - 

o 

1$  P C3 
> *8  « 
^ ^ o 
p 

s»  oS 

2 'g  S 

s Oco 

3 oS1^ 


_l  oa 

O M 


^ 00  OB'-  ^ •— i 3 o n 03  ^ 

!!sft^6§9§,(Si 

!3as 

fl  - -W  a O 1 a..®  a P*  CU 

“t*!l!i!ll|l3!!i§ 

M J jO1 


© 

£ 

o'  d 

03crtcd 

-U  »r-i  .rH 

•Hbo 


_J  bo .. 

|ll!  1 § a jj-g*  a g 


(NCOTMOCOt^OOaOiHlNPJ^IO® 


Jh 

o 

a 

© 


TABLE  Y- A— Showing  the  gross  earnings  from  operating  the  railroads  named,  for  the  year  ending  June  3^,  1889,  as  given  in  the 
Annual  Report  of  the  Railroad  Commissioners  of  Iowa  for  the  year  ending  as  first  above  stated. 


56 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


m bib 
bo  a 

3.S  a 

o 


<v 


Tf05OC<UO05!MO<M<MC0Tj<00C0(MlC  O 
00  CO  CO  00  QO  © 00  CO  1C  © 00  © 

lC©«MrflI^^©©iOCO<M©TtlC<riO©  00 
©i-l©O©00^©Tt<Ttl!MC0Tn©©10 
00  Tt  © 00  <M  (M  00  CO  CO  ^ 10  © <p 


~&X)  ^ I . 

gff.2  8.2s 

•S-s’Sg'a* 

4) 


©coooio©r-©r^©©©©co 

IMCOOCOO'-ltOGO'^lOlONiH 

©TtlC^OOCOTC^t^OOTft^TtirJt 


° !'?•§ 

© IB 


bfl 


(NrH0D'>#^Ot>N5010l0ai0i 
<M  t-*  © Tti  rr  r-  o co  h 
lO  <M  CO  T-I 


— CO 
TT1  © 

co  t> 


^ IQ 
© 


*3  4> 

.2 13b  p 

0*3  S 

hS  ► 

4-1  4) 
f-l 


© r- 
th  r- 

00  © 


© 00  lO  OO  CO  TjH  C—  l>>  (NJ  © © f—  © 
C0©r-<M©©*010<MCO'M©00-1< 
t^cocooorj<c^^'<^ioco»o-^coco 


oo  »o 

1-H  CN 
© H 


<M©<NCO©©^tHttIOOO©C<Jt-i 

C<IOO©I>.00©^C<I^H©COCOI'-'^ 

<NlOTtic^CO©^(N©<N©CO<M© 


N H O OO  oo  N TH  Tf  H 


Is  11  if 

bc.s  a gjS 


8Ba>«* 

<b  OS  . 

4) 

4> 


c3  o, 
IT 


i-i05iOr-ir-iNi-i'HOOco(Noo©©cc 

Ttl  00  © C<l  lO  CO  © OO  <M  oo  © © 

oo  io  co  r-i  io  © © oo  T-i  cq  c<l  rr<  i>- co  © oc  c- 

<N»O©C<l'Tf'-l'<tiC0'i-l©lO00fN'^t^©  lO 
l010C0(NN^NffiNO©Ht>(NC000  lO 
tH  L-  © © t-I  r-i  r-l  <M  © 


^ . 
4)  o 
t-h  bC  3 

£ ° a 

o ® a 

H 1 s 


✓ 


r-©ooco©r^©oo©©'<tHT-ioo^io© 

COlO't’t-H(N«HO'^rH©HHIO^ 

t-iOO©©Tj<lO©iCr-.|>00©00(MT-i(N 

t-H  © © CxT  © 00  Co'  J © t'-'  50*  00  CO  t>-  tH  CO 
©CO©t^lO(M'<J<(MCO©COC^T-l©tOC<J 
I>  <M  04  CO  CO  1C  © © © lO  to  CO  T-I  (M  © 


Report  of  Iowa 
Commissioners. 


50 

I 


t^ooooooooo©TO©'^<o--oioffiCj 

O^IO©1^©OOINtHiOCO©MIOOO 

T-lrHOOT-IC<lTHCOCO©CO'^^flTfllO©t^ 


I s “ a.*8  M_®.  ” ® 1 c ■ « a-s  - 

.-iSHcsojcscjBjBSciaBwa^^ts 

'S'3.2.2.2.2.2.2.2^  fl  O P « p^ 

WQOOQOOOOfiMM^Occ^ 


Transportation. 


67 


'tABLE  Vi— Showing  the  total  operating  expenses  of  the  railroads  named,  as  given  in  Report 
of  State  Railroad  Commissioners  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1890. 


Name  of  railroad  company  in  Kansas  system. 

Report  of  State 
Railroad  Com- 
missioners   

Total 

operating 

expenses. 

Page. 

In  dollars. 

1 

Atchison,  Topeka  & Santa  Fe 

343 

13,028,853 

2 

Chicago,  Kansas  & Nebraska* 

287 

2,319,934 

3 

Chicago,  Burlington  & Quincy 

190 

17,306,245 

4 

Central  Branch  Union  Pacific 

300 

718,875 

5 

Junction  City  & Fort  Kearney.. 

257 

162,297 

6 

Kansas  City,  Fort  Scott  & Memphis 

160 

3,196,836 

7 

Kansas  City,  Clinton  & Springfield 

170 

181,073 

8 

Missouri,  Kansas  & Texas 

205 

6,583,150 

9 

Missouri  Pacific 

219 

9,511,870 

10 

Omaha  & Republican  Valley 

249 

1,124.305 

11 

St.  Joseph  & Grand  Island 

291 

686,275 

12 

St.  Louis  & San  Francisco 

328 

3,479,381 

13 

Solomon 

271 

77,764 

14 

The  Wichita  & Western 

354 

116,985 

15 

Union  Pacific,  Lincoln  & Colorado 

283 

144  ,'820 

16 

Union  Pacific 

314 

11,709,054 

Total 

70,347,717 

Deduct  amount  paid  labor 

37,337,369 

Balance  for  renewal  of  rails,  ties,  etc 

33,010,348 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 


TABLE  YI-A. 


Name  of  railroad  company  m Ioiva  system. 

Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  A Northern 

109 

1,931,194 

Central  Iowa 

142 

1,110,605 

Chicago,  Burlington  & Quincy 

862 

17,278,431 

15,672,998 

15,270,059 

9,195,637 

2,476,151 

2,055,266 

4,074,255 

1,384,450 

1,110,982 

250,030 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  & St.  Paul 

202 

Chicago  & Northwestern 

282 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  & Pacific 

171 

Chicago,  Santa  Fe  & California 

389 

Chicago,  St.  Paul  & Kansas  City 

324 

Chicago,  St.  Paul,  Minneapolis  & Omaha 

644 

Dubuque  & Sioux  City 

358 

Kansas  Citv,  St.  Jqpeph  & Council  Bluffs 

438 

Keokuk  & Western 

463 

Minneapolis  & St.  Louis. 

483 

953,632 

313,514 

Omaha  & St.  Louis 

557 

Sioux  Citv  & Pacific 

612 

333,366 

4,368,811 

Wabash  Western 

705 

Total 

77,779,381 

48,344,047 

Deduct  amount  paid  labor 

Balance  for  renewal  of  rails,  ties,  etc 

29,435,334 

* Report  of  Kansas  Commissioners  for  1889. 


58 


POPULIST  BAND-BOOK. 


OOMPAEATIYE  EEVIEW  OF  TABLES. 

Table  I — Locates  the  mileage  of  the  several  railroads  named,  except 
2,057  miles  of  the  Atchison,  Topeka  & Santa  Fe  Railroad  Company  referred 
to  in  statement  of  bonded  indebtedness  of  said  company;  also  referred  to  in 
note  on  page  835,  wherein  it  is  stated  that  only  the  net  income  from  the  opera- 
tion of  said  2,057  miles  of  road  appears  in  said  report.  This  will  increase  the 
mileage  west  of  Kansas  by  the  amount  stated. 

Table  I-A. — Locates  the  mileage  of  the  several  railroads  named. 

Table  II. — (1)  The  total  freight  earnings  of  the  several  railroads  named 
in  Table  II,  aggregate  $80,244,720.  (2)  The  operating  expenses  chargeable 

to  freight  traffic  aggregate  $47,280,733.  (3)  The  profits  divided  between 

the  European  bondholder  and  Wall  street  manipulator  aggregate  $32,963,- 
987.  In  other  words,  each  dollar  paid  for  renewal  of  rails,  ties,  bridges,  water 
tanks,  buildings,  tools,  machinery,  locomotives,  fuel,  and  all  other  supplies; 
passenger,  express,  baggage,  freight,  and  all  other  cars;  labor  in  maintenance 
of  way,  structures,  equipment,  conducting  transportation,  clerks  in  general 
offices,  insurance,  rents,  loss  or  damage  to  persons  or  property,  including  the 
salaries  of  general  officers  and  rate  manipulators  — for  each  dollar  so  ex- 
pended the  bondholder  and  manipulator  appropriate  to  their  own  use  profits 
averaging  seventy  per  cent.  Thus,  coupon-cutting  and  Wall  street  manipulat- 
ing becomes  an  honored  industry,  an  occupation  which  fattens  a small  number 
of  knaves  at  the  expense  of  a large  number  of  agricultural  and  wage-working 
fools,  whose  profits  the  knaves  appropriate,  wax  fat,  grow  opulent  and  arro- 
gant, and  boast  of  the  vested  rights  of  “ capital,”  forgetting  that  the  only 
true  and  real  capital  invested  in  railroads  is  the  number  of  men  employed  in 
the  various  departments. 

Table  II-A. — (1)  The  total  freight  earnings  of  the  several  railroads  named 
in  Table  II-A  aggregate  $81,964,557.  (2)  The  operating  expenses  chargeable 

to  freight  traffic  aggregate  $50,404,144.  (3)  The  profits  divided  by  the  non- 

producers, but  wealth  consumers,  aggregate  $31,560,413.  Again,  we  find  that 
for  each  dollar  paid  for  renewal  of  rails,  ties,  bridges,  buildings,  locomotives, 
fipel,  and  supplies  of  all  kinds,  labor  in  all  departments,  including  salaries  of 
general  officers,  etc. — for  every  dollar  so  expended  the  bondholder  and  ma- 
nipulator appropriate  sixty-two  cents.  They  (like  little  Oliver)  wanted  more, 
but  the  people  of  Iowa  have  been  looking  after  the  interest  of  the  agricul- 
turist and  wage-worker,  with  beneficial  results. 

Table  III. — (1)  The  average  distance  carried  each  ton  of  freight  by  the 
railroads  named  in  Table  III  wasT48  miles.  (2)  The  average  cost  of  running 
a freight  train  one  mile  was  96  cents.  (3)  The  average  receipts  for  each  ton 
of  freight  carried  one  mile  was  one  cent  and  five  and  a half  mills.  (4)  The 


Transporta  Tioist. 


59 


average  cost  of  carrying  one  ton  of  freight  one  mile  was  eight  mills.  (5)  The 
profits  appropriated  by  the  European  bondholder  and  Wall  street  manipulator 
vary  from  20  to  319  per  cent.,  with  an  average  of  90  per  cent.  The  difference 
in  the  profits  shown  in  Tables  II,  II-A,  III,  and  III-A,  is  due  and  accounted 
for  in  this:  The  figures  in  Tables  II  and  II-A  are  copied  from  reports  referred 
to,  and  deductions  made  by  the  compiler;  while  the  cost  per  ton  mile  shown 
in  Tables  III  and  III-A  are  copied  from  the  reports  given. 

Table  III-A. — (1)  The  average  distance  carried  each  ton  of  freight  by  the 
railroads  named  in  Table  III-A  was  140  miles.  (2)  The  average  cost  of  run- 
ning a freight  train  one  mile  was  ninety-two  cents.  (3)  The  average  receipts 
for  each  ton  of  freight  carried  one  mile  was  one  cent  and  nine-hundredths 
of  a mill.  (4)  The  average  cost  of  carrying  one  ton  of  freight  one  mile  was 
seven  and  seven-hundredths  of  a mill.  (5)  The  profits  appropriated  by 
bondholders  and  manipulators  average  54  per  cent. 

Table  IV. — (1)  The  railroad  companies  named  in  Table  IV  employ  one 
section  foreman  to  each  seven  and  ninety-hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  oper- 
ated. (2)  That  said  companies  employ  one  section  man  or  trackman  for 
each  one  and  forty-two  hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (3)  That  said 
companies  employ  one  bridge  carpenter,  mason,  fence  or  lineman  for  each 
six  and  seventy-seven  hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (4)  That  said 
companies  employ  one  machinist  to  each  ten  miles  of  road  operated.  (5) 
That  said  companies  employ  one  carpenter  for  each  seven  and  sixty-four 
hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (6)  That  said  companies  employ 
one  “other  shopman”  for  each  two  and  forty-one  hundredths  of  a mile 
of  road  operated.  (7)  That  said  companies  employ  one  station  agent 
for  each  ten  and  eighteen-hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (8) 
That  said  companies  employ  one  clerk  or  warehouse  man  (other  station 
men)  for  each  four  and  fifty-eight  hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  oper- 
ated. (9)  That  said  companies  employ  one  locomotive  engineer  for  each 
eight  miles  of  road  operated.  (10)  That  said  companies  employ  one  loco- 
motive fireman  for  each  seven  and  seventy-five  hundredths  of  a mile  of  road 
operated.  (11)  That  said  companies  employ  one  conductor  for  each  eleven 
miles  of  road  operated.  (12)  That  said  companies  employ  one  “other  train- 
man” for  each  six  and  eleven-hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (13) 
That  said  companies  employ  one  switchman  or  watchman  for  each  eleven 
and  forty-five  hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (14)  That  said  com- 
panies employ  one  operator  or  train  dispatcher  for  each  fourteen  and  sixty- 
hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (15)  That  said  companies  employ  one 
clerk  at  general  offices  for  each  eight  and  forty-three  hundredths  of  a mile  of 
road  operated.  (16)  That  the  average  number  of  men  employed  by  the  vari- 


BO 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


ous  railroad  companies  named  in  Table  IV  is  272  men  to  each  100  miles  of 
road  operated;  while  fully  one-half  of  the  railroad  mileage  of  Kansas  does 
not  furnish  employment  to  150  men  to  each  100  miles  of  road  operated. 
This  is  fully  illustrated  by  reference  to  the  Chicago,  Kansas  & Western, 
Wichita  & Western,  Atchison  & Nebraska,  Beaver  Valley,  Chicago,  Nebraska 
& Kansas,  Republican  Valley,  Kansas  & Southwestern,  Hutchinson  & South- 
ern, Kansas  City,  Clinton  & Springfield,  Kansas  City,  Wyandotte  & North- 
western, and  the  various  branch  lines  of  the  Missouri  Pacific  and  Union 
Pacific  railroads.  Therefore,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  average  number  of 
men  furnished  with  continuous  employment  will  not  exceed  225  men  to  each 
100  miles  operated. 

Table  IV-A. — (1)  The  railroad  companies  named  in  Table  IV-A  employ 
one  section  foreman  for  each  five  and  ninety-six  hundredths  of  a mile  of  road 
operated.  (2)  That  said  companies  employ  one  trackman  or  section  man  for 
each  one  and  forty-eight  hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (3)  That 
said  companies  employ  one  bridge  carpenter,  mason,  fence  or  lineman,  for 
each  five  and  eighty-hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (4)  That  said 
companies  employ  one  machinist  for  each  seven  and  seventy-three  hundredths 
of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (5)  That  said  companies  employ  one  carpenter 
for  each  six  and  seventy-hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (6)  That 
said  companies  employ  one  “other  shopman”  for  each  two  and  four-hun- 
dredths of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (7)  That  said  companies  employ  one 
station  agent  for  each  six  and  ninety-one  hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  oper- 
ated. (8)  That  said  companies  employ  one  clerk  or  warehouse  man  (other 
station  men)  for  each  two  and  ninety-one  hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  oper- 
ated. (9)  That  said  companies  employ  one  locomotive  engineer  for  each  six 
and  thirteen-hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (10)  That  said  compan- 
ies employ  one  locomotive  fireman  for  each  five  and  ninety-one  hundredths 
of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (11)  That  said  companies  employ  one  conductor 
for  each  nine  and  thirty-five  hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (12)  That 
said  companies  employ  one  “other  trainman”  for  each  four  and  forty- 
five  hundredths  of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (13)  That  said  companies  em- 
ploy one  switchman  or  watchman  for  each  six  and  seventy-five  hundredths 
of  a mile  of  road  operated.  (14)  That  said  companies  employ  one  train  dis- 
patcher or  telegraph  operator  for' each  ten  and  seventy-five  hundredths  of  a 
mile  of  road  operated.  (15)  That  said  companies  employ  one  clerk  at  gen- 
eral offices  for  each  seven  miles  of  road  operated.  (16)  That  the  average 
number  of  men  employed  by  said  companies  is  333  for  each  100  miles  of  road 
operated. 


TP  A NSP  OP  TA  TION. 


61 


We  will  conclude  Tables  V and  VI  by  the  following 


recapitulation. 


Item. 

Total 

collections 

from 

operating 

roads. 

GRAND  TOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES. 

Profits  paid 
to 

bondholders 

and 

manipulators. 

Per  cent,  of  earnings 

Total 

paid  labor. 

CD 

o 

CD 

c 

o 

ft) 

so 

a 

S' 

cr? 
c « 

Other 
expenses, 
renewal  of 
rails,  ties, 
bridges,  cars, 
locomotives, 
fuel,  and  all 
other 
supplies. 

►d 

CD 

l-S 

o 

CD 

a 

e+ 

O 

CD 

!-» 

a 

a 

QTQ 

GO 

In  dollars. 

In  dollars. 

In  dollars. 

In  dollars. 

Table  IV 

37,337.369 

48,344,047 

33 

40! 

Table  IV-A 

- 

Table  V 

113,026,294 

120,018,000 

42,678,577 

42,238,619 

37£ 

35| 

Table  Y-A 

1 

Table  YI 

33,010,347 

29,435,334 

29* 

24| 

Table  VI-A 

Grand  totals... 

233,044,294 

85,681,416 

36f 

62,445,681 

26f 

84,917,196 

36! 

With  the  foregoing  facts  before  your  legislators,  they  did  all  in  their  power 
to  relieve  the  people  of  Kansas  of  a portion  of  the  burdens  imposed  upon 
them  by  that  octopus,  ( the  money  power  of  England,)  managed  in  America 
by  Wall  street  manipulators,  by  the  introduction  and  passage  in  the  Kansas 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  preceding  railroad  bill  ( p.  31),  which  the  Re- 
publican Senate  refused  to  consider. 

COMPARISON 

Of  tariff  rates  promulgated  by  the  Kansas  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners, 
who  say:  “After  a very  careful  consideration  of  the  subject,  and  the  conditions 
affecting  both  railroads  and  the  people  in  this  State,  we  believe  these  rates  to 
be  both  fair  and  reasonable.”  (Page  117,  Report  of  1890;  rates  effective  Sep- 
tember 1,  1890.)  Compared  with  rates  in  force  over  various  railroad  lines 
operated  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  from  St.  Joseph,  Mo.,  Kansas  City,  Mo., 
Rushville,  Mo.,  Winthrop,  Mo.,  and  Kennmoor,  Mo.;  also  from  Kansas  City, 
Leavenworth,  and  Atchison,  Kansas,  to  points  named  in  Kansas.  While  both 
the  railroad  and  commissioners’  tariffs  are  compared  with  reasonable  maxi- 
mum rates  proposed  in  House  bill  No.  743,  passed  by  the  Kansas  House  of 
Representatives,  February,  1891,  but  the  Republican  Senate  refused  to  con- 
sider said  bill. 


62 


PoPVLlst  HAisrb-BOOic. 


TABLE  VII.— RAILROAD  COMMISSIONERS* 

Showing  distances  from  Kansas  City,  Leavenworth,  Atchison,  or  El  wood,  Kansas,  to  points 

by  authority  of  the  Kansas  Board  of  Railroad  Com- 


In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


Between" 

Kansas  City,  Kas., 
Leavenworth,  Kas  , 
Atchison,  Kas.,  or 
Elwood,  Kas., 

And 

a> 

S' 

B 

Merchandise. 

Car-Loads. 

Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 

CD  - 
rJl 

First  class.. 

Second  class 

Third  class 

1 . 

Fourth  class 

Fifth  class 

Class  A 

Class  B 

Class  C 

Class  D 

Class  E 

1 

Abilene 

163 

66 

58 

53 

42 

37 

30 

23 

20 

14 

11 

2 

Alma 

104 

54 

45 

39 

32 

* 28 

24 

17 

15 

11 

8 

.3 

Anthony 

282 

82 

74 

67 

55 

50 

43 

33.50 

27 

20 

16 

4 

Arkalon 

395 

110 

102 

85 

76 

70 

59 

46 

36 

31 

22 

5 

Ashland 

394 

110 

102 

85 

76 

70 

59 

46 

36 

31 

22 

13 

Atwood 

374 

100 

92 

82 

70 

65 

57 

42 

34 

28 

20 

7 

Beloit 

184 

70 

62 

56 

45 

40 

• 32 

25 

21 

15 

11.50 

8 

Benton 

209 

74 

66 

59 

47 

42 

35 

27 

23 

17 

12.50 

9 

Bird  City 

401 

115 

106 

87 

79 

72 

61 

47 

36.50 

32 

23 

10 

Blaine 

96 

52 

44 

38 

31 

27 

24 

16 

14 

10 

7.50 

11 

Blue  Mound 

117 

57 

48 

43 

35 

31 

26 

18 

16 

12 

9 

12 

Blue  Rapids 

95 

50 

43 

37 

30 

26 

23 

16 

14 

10 

7.50 

13 

Buffalo 

140 

61 

52 

47 

39 

34 

28 

20 

18 

12 

10 

11 

Burlington 

104 

54 

45 

39 

32 

28 

24 

17 

15 

11 

8 

15 

Clay  Center 

147 

63 

55 

49 

40 

35 

29 

21 

19 

13 

10.50 

16 

Colby 

390 

105 

97 

83 

73 

68 

58 

44 

35 

29 

21 

17 

Coldwater 

368 

96 

88 

79 

67 

62 

55 

40 

33.50 

26 

20 

18 

Columbus 

148 

63 

55 

49 

40 

35 

29 

21 

19 

13 

10.50 

19 

Concordia 

155 

64 

56 

50 

41 

36 

29 

22 

20 

13 

10.50 

20 

Corning 

55 

34 

30 

27 

22 

16 

16 

12 

10 

8 

6 

21 

Council  Grove.... 

152 

64 

56 

50 

41 

36 

29 

22 

20 

13 

10.50 

22 

Dighton 

381 

105 

97 

83 

73 

68 

58 

44 

35 

29 

21 

23 

Dodge  City 

368 

96 

*88 

79 

67 

62 

55 

40 

33.50 

26 

20 

24 

Dresden 

350 

88 

80 

73 

61 

56 

49 

36.50 

30 

23 

19 

25 

El  Dorado 

195 

72 

64 

57 

46 

41 

33 

26 

22 

16 

12 

26 

Ellsworth 

223 

76 

68 

61 

49 

44 

37 

29 

24 

17 

12.50 

27 

Emporia 

113 

56 

47 

41 

34 

30 

25 

18 

16 

12 

8.50 

28 

Erie 

120 

57 

48 

43 

35 

31 

26 

18 

16 

12 

9 

29 

Eureka 

155 

64 

56 

50 

41 

36 

29 

22 

20 

13 

10.50 

30 

Fort  Scott 

99 

52 

44 

38 

31 

27 

24 

16 

14 

10 

7.50 

31 

Fredonia 

152 

64 

56 

50 

41 

36 

29 

22 

20 

13 

-10.50 

32 

Garden  City 

418 

120 

108 

89 

82 

74 

63 

48 

37 

33 

23.50 

33 

Garnett 

83 

46 

41 

35 

28 

23 

22 

15 

13 

9 

7 

34 

Girard 

125 

58 

49 

44 

36 

32 

26 

19 

17 

12 

9.50 

35 

Goodland 

423 

125 

110 

91 

85 

75 

64 

49 

38 

35 

24 

36 

Grainfield 

356 

'92 

84 

76 

64 

59 

52 

38 

32 

25 

20 

37 

Great  Bend 

286 

82 

74 

67 

55 

50 

43 

33.50 

27 

20 

16 

38 

Greensburg 

306 

84 

76 

69 

57 

52 

45 

34.50 

28 

22 

17 

39 

Gridley 

114 

56 

47 

41 

34 

30 

25 

18 

16 

12 

8.50 

40 

Hartland 

447 

134 

114 

95 

88 

77 

66 

51 

40 

37 

25 

41 

Hays  City 

286 

82 

74 

67 

55 

50 

43 

33.50 

27 

20 

16 

42 

Hiawattfa 

40 

28 

25 

21 

19 

13' 

13 

10 

8 

6 

5 

43 

Hill  City 

324 

86 

78 

71 

59 

54 

47 

35.50 

29 

22 

18 

44 

Holton 

55 

34 

30 

27 

22 

16 

16 

12 

10 

8 

6 

45 

Howard 

204 

74 

66 

59 

47 

42 

35 

27 

23 

! 17 

12.50 

i 


Transporta  Tion. 


63 


REASONABLE  tariff  rates. 

named,  with  reasonable  rates  on  merchandise  and  car-load  freights,  between  the  points  named, 
missioners,  September  1,  1890.  (Report  1890,  page  119.) 


Commodities,  Oar-Loads.  Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 
In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 

Live  Stock. 
Inside  measure  of  car,  31 
feet.  In  dollars  and 
cents  per  car-load. 

GO 

p" 

et- 

© 

P 

P 

P 

— i 

a 

GO 

— 

Soft  coal,  lump  or  nut 

W 

O 8? 

Wheat,  flour,  corn  meal, 
flax  seed,  castor  beans, 
broom-corn  seed,  mil- 
let seed,  sorghum  seed.. 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  barley, 
bran,  or  mill  stuffs 

Rate  per  ton  per  mile 
on  corn,  oats,  rye, 
bran,  barley,  etc 

2 

zr 

*D 

-i 

rt- 

t 

G 

< 

c 

c 

f 

3 S' 
1 g 

s O 

"'O 

a> 

B 

<ET 

Horses  and  mules 

Cattle  and  hogs 

( 

i 

1 

Sheep,  single-deck 

o.ar 

1 

l 

( 

1 

1 

3 

~r 

-5 

50 

Cls 

Mills 

Cts 

Mills 

17 

21.33 

11 

1 

3.50 

14.50 

12,50 

1 

5.40 

43.00 

37.50 

26.50 

1 

13.50 

16 

7.75 

1 

4.90 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

6.34 

35.00 

28.00 

20.50 

2 

21 

26 

15.75 

1 

1.17 

16.25 

14.25 

1 

0.10 

51.00 

45.50 

31.50 

3 

30 

37 

20.50 

1 

0.38 

19 

17 

8.61 

66.00 

51.00 

37.00 

4 

30 

37 

20.50 

1 

0.41 

19 

17 

8.63 

66.00 

51.00 

37.00 

5 

26 

35 

20 

1 

0.69 

18.25 

16.25 

8.69 

64.00 

50.00 

36.00 

6 

18 

22.66 

12 

1 

3.04. 

15 

13 

1 

4. *13 

45.50 

39.50 

28.50 

7 

20 

23.33 

12,50 

1 

1.96 

15750 

13.50 

1 

2.92 

47.50 

41.50 

30.00 

8 

32 

38 

21 

1 

0.47 

19.25 

17.25 

8.60 

67.00 

51.50 

38.00 

9 

13 

15.33 

7.50 

1 

5.62 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

7.71 

33.00 

27.00 

20.00 

10 

15 

18 

9 

1 

5.38 

11.50 

9.50 

1 

6.24 

38.00 

31.00 

22.00 

11 

13 

15 

7.50 

1 

5.79 

10 

8.25 

1 

7.37 

32.00 

26.50 

20.00 

12 

16 

19.66 

' 10.50 

1 

5.00 

13.50 

11.50 

1 

6.43 

40.50 

35.00 

24.00 

13 

13.50 

16 

7.75 

1 

4.90 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

6.35 

35.00 

* 28.00 

20.50 

14 

16 

20.50 

10.75 

1 

4.64 

14 

12 

1 

6.33 

41.00 

36.00 

25.00 

15 

28 

36 

20 

1 

0.25 

18.75 

16.75 

8.59 

65.00 

50.50 

36.50 

16 

25 

34 

19.75 

1 

0.73 

18.25 

16.25 

8.83 

63.00 

49.50 

35.50 

17 

16 

20.33 

10.75 

1 

4.53 

14 

12 

1 

6.22 

41.00 

36.00 

25.00 

18 

16 

20.66 

10. 75^ 

1 

3.87 

14 

12 

1 

5.48 

41.00 

36.50 

25.50 

19 

9 

11.33 

6 

2 

1.82 

8 

7 

2 

5.45 

23.00 

19.00 

16.00 

20 

16 

20.66 

10.75 

1 

4.14 

14 

12 

1 

5.79 

41.00 

36.50 

25.50 

21 

28 

36 

20 

1 

0.50 

18.75 

16.75 

8.79 

65.00 

50.50 

36.50 

22 

25 

34 

19.75 

1 

0.73 

18.25 

16.25 

8.83 

63.00 

49.50 

35.50 

23 

23 

3: 

> 

19 

1 

0.86 

17.75 

15.75 

9.00 

60.50 

48.50 

34.00 

24 

19 

23 

12.25 

1 

2.56 

14.25 

13.25 

1 

3.59 

46.50 

40.50 

29.50 

25 

20 

24 

13.25 

1 

1.88 

15.75 

13,75 

1 

2.33 

48.50 

42.50 

30.50 

26 

14.50 

17.33 

8.50 

1 

5.04 

11 

9 

1 

5.93 

37.00 

30.00 

21.50 

27 

15 

18 

9 

1 

5.00 

11.50 

9.50 

1 

5.83 

38.00 

31.00 

22.00 

28 

16 

20.66 

10.75 

1 

3.87 

14 

12 

1 

5.48 

41.00 

36.50 

25.50 

29 

13 

15.33 

7.50 

1 

5.15 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

7.17 

33.00 

27.00 

20.00 

30 

16 

20.66 

10.75 

1 

4.14 

14 

12 

1 

5.79 

41.00 

36.50 

25.50 

31 

34 

39 

21.50 

1 

0.29 

19.50 

17.50 

8.37 

69.00 

52.00 

38.50 

32 

12 

14 

7.25 

1 

7.47 

9.50 

8 

1 

9.28 

30.00 

25.00 

19.00 

33 

15 

18.66 

9.75 

1 

5.60 

11.50 

9.50 

1 

5.20 

39.50 

32.00 

22.50 

34 

34.50 

40 

22 

1 

0.40 

19.75  . 

17.75 

8.39 

71.00 

53.00 

39.00 

35 

24 

33 

19.50 

1 

0.95 

18 

16 

8.99 

62.00 

49.00 

35.00 

36 

21 

26 

15.75 

1 

1.01 

16.25 

14.25 

9.96 

51.00 

45.50 

31.50 

37 

22 

28 

16.50 

1 

0.78 

16.50 

14.50 

9.48 

53.00. 

46.50 

32.00 

38 

14.50 

17.33 

8.50 

1 

4.91 

11 

9 

1 

5.84 

37.00 

30.00 

21.50 

39 

35.30 

42 

23 

1 

0.29 

20 

18 

8.05 

75.00 

55.00 

40.00 

40 

21 

26 

15. '5 

1 

1.01 

16.25 

14.25 

9.96 

51.00 

45.50 

31.50 

41 

7 

9.66 

5.25 

2 

6.25 

7.50 

6.50 

3 

2.50 

20.00 

16.00 

13.50 

42 

23 

3l) 

18 

1 

1.11 

17.25 

15.25 

9.41 

57.00 

47.50 

32.50 

43 

9 . 

11.33 

6 

2 

1.82 

8 

7 

2 

5.45 

23.00 

19.00 

16.00 

44 

20 

23.33 

12.50 

1 

2.25 

15.50 

13.50 

1 

3.23 

47.50 

41.50 

30.00 

45 

64 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


TABLE  VII.— RAILROAD  COMMISSIONERS' 


Showing  distances  from  Kansas  City,  Leavenworth,  Atchison,  or  Elwood,  Kansas,  to  points 

by  authority  of  the  Kansas  Board  of  Railroad  Com- 


Between 

Kansas  City,  Kas., 
Leavenworth,  Kas., 
Atchison,  Kas.,  or 
Elwood,  Kas., 

And 

g 

on* 

<r*- 

d 

O 

o 

d’ 

B 

In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 

Merchandise. 

Car-Loads. 

Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 

T> 

fi 

First  class 

Second  class 

Third  class 

Fourth  class 

Fifth  class 

Class  A 

Class  B 

■ i 

Class  C 

Class  D 

Class  E 

■ 

46 

Hoxie 

357 

92 

84 

76 

64 

59 

52 

38 

32 

25 

20 

47 

Hutchinson 

234 

77 

69 

62 

50 

45 

38 

30 

24 

18 

13 

48 

Independence.... 

166 

67 

59 

54 

42 

37 

31 

23 

20 

14 

11 

49 

Ingalls 

393 

110 

102 

85 

76 

70 

59 

46 

36 

31 

22 

50 

Iola 

110 

55 

46 

40 

33 

29 

25 

17 

15 

11 

8 

51 

Junction  City 

139 

61 

52 

47 

39 

34 

28 

20 

18 

12 

10 

52 

Jetmore 

354 

92 

84 

76 

64 

59 

52 

38 

32 

25 

20 

53 

Kingman 

273 

81 

73 

66 

54 

49 

42 

.33 

26 

20 

15 

54 

Kinsley 

332 

87 

79 

72 

• 60 

55 

48 

36 

29 

23 

18.50 

55 

Lawrence 

34 

25 

23 

20 

17 

12 

12 

10 

8 

6 

5 

56 

Larned 

308 

84 

76 

69 

57 

52 

45 

34.50 

28 

22 

17 

57 

Leoti 

430 

125 

110 

91 

85 

75 

64 

49 

38 

35 

24 

58 

Lincoln  Center... 

221 

76 

68 

61 

49 

44 

37 

29 

24 

17 

12.50 

59 

Lyndon 

• 

83 

46 

41 

35 

28 

23 

22 

15 

13 

9 

7 

60 

Lindsborg  

207 

74 

66 

59 

47 

42 

35 

27 

23 

17 

12.50 

61 

Lyons 

251 

79 

71 

64 

52 

47 

40 

32 

25 

19 

14 

62 

McPherson 

196 

73 

65 

58 

46 

41 

34 

26 

22 

16 

12 

63 

Manhattan 

119 

57 

48 

43 

35 

31 

26 

18 

16 

12 

9 

64 

Mankato 

191 

72 

64 

57 

46 

41 

33 

26 

22 

16 

12 

65 

Marion 

172 

68 

60 

55 

43 

38 

31 

24 

21 

15 

11.50 

66 

Meade  Center 

369 

96 

88 

79 

67 

62 

55 

40 

33.50 

26 

20 

67 

Medicine  Lodge.. 

329 

86 

78 

71 

59 

54 

47 

35.50 

29 

22 

18 

68 

Minneapolis 

195 

72 

64 

57 

46 

41 

33 

26 

22 

16 

12 

69 

Mound  Valley.... 

149 

63 

55 

49 

40 

35 

29 

21 

19 

13 

10.50 

70 

Neal  

148 

63 

55 

49 

40 

35 

29 

21 

19 

13 

10.50 

71 

Neodesha 

161 

66 

.58 

53 

42 

37 

30 

23 

20 

14 

11 

72 

Ness  City 

350 

88 

80 

73 

61 

56 

49 

36.50 

30 

23 

19 

73 

Newton 

201 

74 

66 

59 

47 

42 

35 

27 

23 

17 

12.50 

74 

Norton 

318 

85 

77 

70 

58 

53 

46 

35 

28 

22 

17 

75 

Oberlin 

347 

88 

80 

73 

61 

56 

49 

36.50 

30 

23 

19 

76 

Olathe 

21 

22 

19 

17 

14 

10 

10 

9 

7 

6 

4.50 

77 

Osborne  

218 

75 

67 

60 

48 

43 

36 

28 

23 

17 

12.50 

78 

Ottawa 

58 

-36 

32 

28 

23 

17 

17 

12 

10 

8 

6 

79 

Paola 

43 

30 

27 

23 

20 

14 

14 

11 

9 

7 

5.50 

80 

Parsons 

137 

61 

52 

47 

39 

34 

28 

20 

18 

12 

10 

81 

Peru 

198 

73 

65 

58 

46 

41 

34 

26 

22 

16 

12 

82 

Phillipsburg 

283 

82 

74 

67 

55 

50 

43 

33.50 

27 

20 

16 

83 

Pleasanton 

74 

42 

38 

33 

26 

20 

20 

14 

12 

8 

7 

84 

Pratt 

276 

81 

73 

66 

54 

49 

42 

33 

26 

20 

15 

85 

Reece 

171 

68 

60 

55 

43 

38 

31 

24 

21 

15 

11.50 

86 

Rush  Center 

318 

85 

77 

70 

58 

53 

46 

35 

28 

22 

17 

87 

Russell 

263 

80 

72 

65 

53 

48 

41 

32.50 

26 

20 

15 

88 

Salina 

186 

71 

63 

57 

45 

40 

33 

25 

21 

15 

11.50 

89 

Scandia 

170 

67 

59 

54 

42 

37 

31 

23 

20 

14 

11 

90 

1 Scott  City 

406 

115 

106 

87 

79 

72 

61 

47 

36.50 

32 

23 

TBANSP  OB  TA  TION. 


65 


REASONABLE  TARIFF  RATES — Continued. 

named,  with  reasonable  rates  on  merchandise  and  car-load  freights,  between  the  points  named, 
missioners,  September  1,  1880.  ( Report  1890,  page  119.) 


Commodities,  Car-Loads.  Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 
In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


GO 

P, 

Soft  coal,  lump  or  nut 

W 

O P 

Wheat,  flour,  corn  meal, 
flax  seed,  castor  beans, 
broom-corn  seed,  mil- 
let seed,  sorghum  seed.. 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  barley, 
bran,  or  mill  stuffs 

Rate  per  ton  per  mile 
on  corn,  oats,  rye, 
bran,  barley,  etc 

cents  per  car-load. 

B 

C 

3 

zr 

V 

~i 

rt- 

G 

C 

« 

C 

c 

3 CD 
^CD 

D © 

0 o 

CD 

B 

ciT 

Horses  and  mules 

Cattle  and  hogs 

t 

I 

1 

Sheep,  single-deck 
car I 

1 

\ 

1 

l 

1 

3 

”D 

-s 

Cts 

Mills 

Cts 

Mills 

24 

33 

19.50 

1 

0.92 

18 

16 

8.68 

62.00 

49.00 

35.00 

46 

21 

24.33 

13.50 

1 

1.54 

15.75 

13.75 

1 

1.75 

49.00 

43.00 

31.00 

47 

17 

21.66 

11.25 

1 

3.55 

15 

13 

1 

5.66 

43.50 

38.00 

27.00 

48 

30 

37 

20.50 

1 

0.43 

19 

17 

8.65 

66.00 

51.00 

37.00 

49 

14 

16.66 

8 

1 

4.54 

11 

9 

1 

6.36 

36.00 

29.00 

21.00 

50 

16 

19.66 

10.50 

1 

5.11 

13.50 

11.50 

1 

6.55 

40.50 

35.00 

24.00 

51 

24 

33 

19.50 

1 

1.02 

18 

16 

9.04 

62.00 

49.00 

35.00 

52 

21 

25.66 

15.25 

1 

1.17 

16 

14 

1 

0.26 

50.50 

45.00 

31.50 

53 

23 

31 

1^.50 

1 

1.14 

17.50 

15.50 

9.34 

59.00 

48.00 

33.00 

54 

7 

f 

9 

5 

2 

9.41 

7 

6 

3 

5.29 

19.00 

15.00 

12.50 

55 

22 

28 

16.50 

1 

0.71 

16.50 

14.50 

9.41 

53.00 

46.50 

32.00 

56 

34.50 

40 

22 

1 

0.23 

19.75 

17.75 

8.26 

71.00 

53.00 

39.00 

57 

20 

24 

13.25 

1 

1.99 

15.75 

13.75 

1 

2.44 

48.50 

42.50 

30.50 

58 

12 

14 

7.25 

1 

7.47 

9.50 

8 

1 

9.28 

30.00 

25.00 

19.00 

59 

20 

23.33 

12.50 

1 

2.08 

15.50 

13.50 

1 

3.04 

47.50 

41.50 

30.00 

60 

21 

25  " 

14.50 

1 

1.55 

16 

14 

1 

1.15 

50.00 

44.00 

31.00 

61 

19 

23 

12.25 

1 

2.50 

15.25 

13.25 

1 

3.55 

47.00 

41.00 

30.00 

62 

15 

18 

9 

1 

5.12 

11.50 

9.50 

1 

5.96 

38.00 

31.00 

22.00 

63 

19 

23 

12.25 

1 

2.82 

15.25 

13.25 

1 

3.87 

46.50 

40.50 

29.50 

64 

18 

22 

11.50 

1 

3.37 

15 

13 

1 

5.11 

44.00 

38.50 

27.50 

65 

25 

34 

19.75 

1 

0.70 

18.25 

16.25 

8.81 

63.00 

49.50 

35.50 

66 

23 

30 

18 

1 

0.94 

17.25 

15.25 

9.27 

57.00 

47.50 

32.50 

67 

19 

23 

12.25 

1 

2.56 

15.25 

13.25 

1 

3.59 

46.50 

40.50 

29.50 

68 

16 

20.50 

10.75 

1 

4.43 

14 

12 

1 

6.11 

41.00 

36.00 

25.00 

69 

16 

20.50 

10.75 

1 

4.53 

14 

12 

1 

6.21 

41.00 

36.00 

25.00 

70 

17 

21.33 

11 

1 

3.41 

14.50 

12.50 

1 

5.24 

43.00 

37.50 

26.50 

71 

23 

32 

19 

1 

0.86 

17.75 

15.75 

9.00 

60.50 

48.50 

34.00 

72 

20 

23.33 

12.50 

1 

2.43 

15.50 

13.50 

1 

3.43 

47.50 

41.50 

30.00 

73 

22 

29 

17.25 

1 

0.85 

17 

15 

9.43 

55.00 

47.00 

32.00 

74 

23 

32 

19 

1 

0.85 

17.75 

15.75 

9.08 

60.50 

48.50 

34.00 

75 

6.50 

7.66 

4.50 

4 

2.85 

6 

5 

4 

7.62 

17.00 

13.00 

11.00 

76 

20 

23.66 

13 

1 

1.92 

15.50 

13.50 

1 

2.38 

48.00 

42.00 

30.50 

77 

10 

12 

6.25 

2 

1.55 

8.25 

7.25 

2 

5.00 

24.00 

20.00 

16.00 

78 

8 

10.33 

5.50 

2 

5.58 

8.50 

6.50 

3 

0.23 

21.00 

17.00 

14.00 

79 

16 

19.66 

10.50 

1 

5.33 

13.50 

11.50 

1 

6.79 

40.50 

35.00 

24.00 

80 

19 

23r 

12.25 

1 

2.33 

15.25 

13.25 

1 

3.38 

47.00 

41.00 

30.00 

81 

21 

26 

15.75 

1 

1.13 

16.25 

14.25 

1 

0.07 

51.00 

45.50 

31.50 

82 

11 

13 

7 

1 

8.92 

8.50 

7.50 

2 

0.27 

27.00 

23.00 

18.00 

83 

21 

25.66 

15.25 

1 

1.05 

16 

14 

1 

0.14 

50.50 

45.00 

31.50 

84 

18 

22 

11.50 

1 

3.45 

15 

13 

1 

5.20 

44.00 

38.50 

27.50 

85 

22 

29 

17.25 

1 

0.85 

17 

15 

9.43 

55.00 

47.00 

32.00 

86 

21 

25.33 

14.75 

1 

1.22 

16 

14 

1 

0.65 

50.00 

44.50 

31.50 

87 

19 

22.66 

12 

1 

2.90 

15.25 

13.25 

1 

4.25 

46.00 

40.00 

29.00 

88 

17 

21.66 

11.25 

1 

3.23 

15 

13 

1 

5.29 

43.50 

38.00 

27.00 

89 

32 

38 

21 

1 

0.34 

19.25 

17.25 



8.50 

67.00 

51.50 

38.00 

90 

Live  Stock. 
Inside  measure  of  car,  31 
In  dollars  and 


66 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


TABLE  VII.— RAILROAD  COMMISSIONERS’ 


Showing  distances  from  Kansas  City,  Leavenworth,  Atchison,  or  Elwood,  Kansas,  to  points 

by  authority  of  the  Kansas  Board  of  Railroad  Com- 


Between 

Kansas  City,  Kas., 
Leavenworth,  Kas., 
Atchison,  Kas.,  or 
Elwood,  Kas., 

And 

g 

<rt- 

P 

B 

O 

CD 

5’ 

B 

In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 

Merchandise. 

Car-loads. 

Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 

V 

33 

First  class 

Second  class 

Third  class 

Fourth  class 

Fifth  class 

Class  A 

Class  B l 

Class  C 

Class  D 

Class  E... 

91 

Sedan 

203 

74 

66 

59 

47 

42 

35 

27 

23 

17 

12.50 

92 

Sharon  Springs, 

429 

125 

110 

91 

85 

75 

64 

49 

38 

35 

24 

93 

Smith  Center.... 

254 

79 

71 

64 

52 

47 

40 

32 

25 

19 

14 

94 

Stafford 

273 

81 

73 

66 

54 

49 

42 

33 

26 

20 

15 

95 

Stockton 

250 

78 

70 

63 

51 

46 

39 

31 

25 

18 

13.50 

96 

Strong  City 

148 

63 

55 

49 

40 

35 

29 

21 

19 

13 

10.50 

97 

Syracuse 

470 

134 

114 

95 

88 

77 

66 

51 

40 

37 

25 

98 

Tonovay 

154 

64 

56 

50 

41 

36 

29 

22 

20 

13 

10.50 

99 

Topeka 

50 

32 

29 

25 

21 

15 

15 

11 

9 

7 

5.50 

100 

Toronto 

141 

62 

54 

48 

40 

35 

28 

21  * 

19 

13 

10.50 

101 

Tribune 

471 

134 

114 

95 

88 

77 

66 

51 

40 

37 

25 

102 

Valiev  Falls 

36 

28 

25 

21 

19 

13 

13 

10 

8 

6 

5 

103 

Wakeeney 

321 

86 

78 

71 

59 

54 

47 

35.50 

29 

22 

18 

104 

W amego 

104 

54 

45 

39 

32 

28 

24 

17 

15 

11 

8 

105 

Washington 

120 

57 

48 

43 

35 

31 

26 

18 

16 

12 

9 

106 

Wellington 

261 

80 

72 

65 

53 

48 

41 

32.50 

26 

20 

15 

107 

Wesphalia 

101 

54 

45 

39 

32 

28 

24 

17 

15 

11 

8 

108 

Wichita 

222 

76 

68 

61 

49 

44 

37 

29 

24 

17 

12.50 

109 

Winfield 

247 

78 

70 

63 

51 

46 

39 

31 

25 

18 

13.50 

110 

Winona 

398 

110 

102 

85 

76 

70 

59 

46 

36 

31 

22 

111 

Yates  Center 

124 

■ 58 

49 

44 

36 

32 

26 

19 

17 

12 

9.50 

TRANSPORTA  TION. 


67 


W-:  - 


REASONABLE  TARIFF  RATES — Concluded. 

named,  with  reasonable  rates  on  merchandise  and  car-load  freights,  between  the  points  named, 
missioners,  September  1,  1890.  (Report  1890,  page  119.) 


Commodities,  Car-Loads.  Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 
In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


Lumber 

Salt 

Soft  coal,  lump  or  nut 

< 

t 

c 

< 

e 

( 

i 

l 

Rate  per  ton  per  mile 

r\ n onff 

Wheat,  flour,  corn  meal, 
flax  seed,  castor  beans, 
broom-corn  seed,  mil- 
let seed,  sorghum  seed.. 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  barley, 
bran,  or  mill  stuffs 

Rate  per  ton  per  mile 
on  corn,  oats,  rye, 
bran,  barley,  etc.... 

Cts 

Mills 

Cts 

Mills 

20 

23.33 

12.50 

1 

2.31 

15.50 

13.50 

1 

3.30 

34.50 

40 

22 

1 

'0.25 

19.75 

17.75 

..... 

8.27 

21 

25 

14.50 

1 1.42 

16 

14 

1.02 

21 

25.66 

15.25 

1 1.17 

16 

14 

1 

0.25 

21 

24.66 

14 

1 1.20 

16 

14 

1 

1.20 

16 

20.33 

10.75 

1 4.53 

14 

12 

1 

6.22 

35.50 

42 

23 

9.79 

20 

18 

7.66 

16 

20.66 

10.75 

113.96 

14 

12 

1 

5.56 

8 

11 

5.75 

2 3.00 

8 

6.50 

2 

6.00 

16 

20 

10.50 

1 4.90 

13.50 

11.50 

1 

6.31 

35.50 

42 

23 

'9.77 

20 

18 

7.64 

7 

9.66 

5.25 

2 9.16 

7.50 

6.50 

3 

6.11 

23 

30 

18 

ill. 21 

17.25 

15.25 

9.50 

13.50 

16 

7.75 

1 

4.90 

10.50 

• 8.50 

1 

6.35 

15 

18 

9 

1 

5.00 

11.50 

9.50 

1 

5.83 

21 

25.33 

14.75 

1 

1.30 

16 

14 

1 

0.73 

13.50 

16 

7.75 

1 

5.34 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

6.83 

20 

24 

13.25 

1 

1.94 

15.75 

13.75 

1 

2.39 

21 

24.66 

14 

1 

1.38 

16 

14 

1 

1.38 

30 

37 

20.50 

1 

0.30 

19 

17 

8.54 

15 

18.66 

9.75 

1 

5.73 

11.50 

9.50 

1 

5.32 

Live  Stock. 
Inside  measure  of  car,  31 
feet.  In  dollars  and 
cents  per  car-load. 

c c 

e-*- 

S3 

c-t- 

O 

P 

a 

c 

Horses  and  mules 

Cattle  and  hogs 

1 

, j 

1 

Sheep,  single-deck 
oar 

1 

j 

1 

t 

1 

3 

s' 

» 

~t 

47.50 

41.50 

30.00 

91 

71.00 

53.00 

39.00 

92 

50.00 

44.00 

31.00 

93 

50.50 

45.00 

31.50 

94 

49.50 

43.50 

31.00 

95 

41.00 

36.00 

25.00 

96 

75.00 

55.00 

40.00 

97 

41.00 

36.50 

25.50 

98 

22.00 

18.00 

15.00 

99 

40.50 

35.50 

24.50 

100 

75.00 

„ 55.00 

40.00 

101 

20.00 

16.00 

13.50 

102 

57.00 

47.50 

32.50 

103 

35.00 

28.00 

20.50 

104 

38.00 

31.00 

22.00 

105 

50.00 

44.50 

31.50 

106 

35.00 

28.00 

20.50 

107 

48.50 

42.50 

30.50 

108 

49.50 

43.50 

31.00 

109 

66.00 

51.00 

37.00 

no 

39.50 

32.00 

22.50 

111 

68 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


TABLE  VIII. — RAILROAD  TARIFF 

Showing  distances  from  Kansas  City  or  St.  Joseph,  Missouri,  Atchison  or  Leavenworth,  Kan- 

any  railroad  line  operated 


In  cents  ajid  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


Between 

Kansas  City,  Mo., 
St.  Joseph,  Mo., 
Atchison,  Kas., 
Leavenworth,  Kas  , 

And 

CD 

D 

B 

Merchandise. 

Car-Loads. 

Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 

D 

JO 

First  class 

Second  class 

• 

Third  class 

Fourth  class 

| Fifth  class 

t 

! 

i 

'i 

1 

a* 

a 

* 

> 

( 

! 

i 

i 

1 

2 

a 

30 

30 

30 

< 

i 

i 

( 

£ 

Z2 

p 

< 

! 

i 

1 

1 

2 

a* 

30 

a 

J 

( 

! 

1 

1 

1 

2 

a 

a 

a 

s 

1 

Abilene 

163 

51 

45.50 

38 

30 

1 

26 

i 

25 

18 

15.50 

11 

7.50 

2 

Alma 

104 

37 

24 

28 

23 

19 

17 

13 

11 

9 

7 

3 

Anthony 

282 

76 

65 

57 

49 

42 

38.50 

25 

21 

20 

. 14 

4 

Arkalon 

395 

92 

81 

73 

64 

57 

49 

35 

28 

26 

18 

5 

Ashland 

394 

87 

77 

68 

59 

52 

43 

30 

25 

25 

17 

6 

Atwood 

374 

81 

74 

68 

57 

51  i 

42 

34 

27 

20 

16.50 

7 

Beloit 

184 

56 

50 

42.50 

34 

29  | 

27 

21 

17 

13 

10 

8 

Benton 

209 

61 

54 

47 

38 

32.50 

31 

22 

18 

15 

11 

9 

Bird  City 

401 

89 

80 

72 

60 

54 

47 

39 

30 

23 

19 

10 

•Blaine 

96 

37 

34 

31 

25 

20 

18 

14 

12 

11 

7 

11 

Blue  Mound 

117 

36 

31 

27 

20 

15 

r 

F 

13 

8 

7 

5.25 

12 

Blue  Rapids 

95 

40 

35 

28 

23 

19 

17 

13 

11 

9 

1 

13 

Buffalo 

140 

52 

43 

40 

29 

24 

25 

19 

12 

12 

9 

14 

Burlington 

104 

49 

40 

35 

28 

24 

23 

17 

10 

10 

7.50 

15 

Clay  Center 

147 

50 

45.50 

37 

28 

24 

23 

18 

14 

11 

7.50 

16 

Colby 

390 

81 

74 

68 

57 

51 

42 

34 

27 

20 

16.50 

17 

Cold  water 

368 

86 

76 

68 

58 

52 

43 

29 

25 

22 

17 

18 

Columbus 

148 

49 

40 

35 

25 

20 

22.50 

18 

10 

9 

7.50 

19 

Concordia 

155 

51 

45.50 

38 

30 

26 

25 

18 

15.50 

11 

7.50 

20 

Corning 

55 

30 

25 

22 

20 

15 

15 

11 

j 

5 

8 

6 

21 

Council  Grove 

152 

49 

40 

35 

28 

24 

23 

18 

13 

11 

7.50 

22 

Dighton 

381 

77 

71 

64 

57 

50 

41 

30 

26 

20 

16 

23 

Dodge  City 

368 

87 

78 

71 

60 

55 

46 

32 

27 

23 

18 

24 

Dresden 

350 

79 

71 

65 

55 

49 

40 

29 

25 

20 

15.50 

25 

El  Dorado 

195 

58 

52 

45 

36 

31 

30 

22 

18 

14 

10.50 

26 

Ellsworth 

223 

61 

56 

50 

40 

35 

32 

24 

21 

16 

12 

27 

Emporia 

113 

49 

40 

35 

28 

24 

23 

18 

13 

11 

7.50 

28 

Erie 

120 

49 

40 

35 

25 

20 

| 22 

17 

10 

9 

7.50 

29 

Eureka 

155 

55 

51 

44 

34 

30 

j 23 

21 

16 

13 

10 

30 

Falls  City,  Neb 

101 

25 

20 

17 

15 

12 

11 

9 

7 

7 

i 

5 

31 

Fort  Scott 

99 

36 

31 

27 

20 

15 

! 17 

13 

8 

7 

5.25 

32 

Fredonia 

152 

52 

47 

42 

31 

26 

26 

21 

13 

13 

9 

33 

Garden  City 

418 

94 

84 

76 

65 

59 

51 

37 

30 

26 

19 

34 

Garnett 

83 

40 

34 

29 

24 

17 

17 

14 

10 

8 

7 

35 

Girard 

125 

49 

40 

35 

25 

20 

! 22 

17 

10 

9 

7.50 

36 

Goodland 

423 

89 

80 

72 

60 

54 

| 47 

39 

30 

23 

19 

37 

Grainfield 

356 

80 

72 

66 

57 

51 

j 41 

30 

26 

20 

16 

38 

Great  Bend 

286 

66 

58 

50 

41 

36 

32.50 

24 

21 

16 

12 

39 

Greensburg...^ 

306 

78 

71 

63 

55 

48 

| 40 

28 

23 

20 

16 

40 

Gridley 

114 

52 

44 

38 

29 

26 

, 24 

18 

12 

11 

8 

41 

Hartland 

447 

94 

84 

77 

65 

59 

51 

41 

32 

26 

19 

42 

Hays  City 

286 

64 

58 

53 

48 

42 

I 34 

26 

22 

16 

13 

43 

Hiawatha 

40 

22 

18 

15 

13 

10 

1 10 

8 

7 £ 

6 

5 

TRANSPORTA  TION. 


69 


RATES  AND  DISTANCES. 

sas,to  points  named;  also  rates  on  merchandise  and  car-load  freights  between  said  points  via 
between  the  stations  named. 


Commodities,  Car-Loads.  Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 
In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


Lumber,  lath,  shingles,  fence 
posts  (cedar),  sash,  doors, 
blinds,  moulding,  bed  slats, 
sawdust 

CO 

-rSL 

Soft  coal,  lump  or  nut 

W 

OB  SO 

O G 0 M J 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  rye,  corn 
meal,  bran,  mill  feed,  mill 
stuffs,  chop,  sorghum  seed, 
grain  screenings,  oat  hulls.. 

cr 

Rate  per  ton  per  mile  on 
corn,  oats,  rye,  barley. 

cents  per  car-load. 

t in  barrels,  sacks,  or 
mlk 

c 

H 

e 

c 

? 

ST 
$ ® 

Li 

o 

P 

a> 

>s 

B 

CD 

O 

P 

leat,  oat  meal,  flour,  flax 
eed,  hemp  seed,  millet  ' 

eed,  broom-corn  seed, 
fltst.or  hp.n.ns 

1 

1 

J 

< 

l 

( 

a 

b , 

•D 

r*- 

p 

Horses  and  mules 

Cattle  and  hogs 

Sheep,  single-deck  car 

Cts 

Mills 

Cts 

Mills 

12 

13 

8.50 

1 

0.43 

14 

12 

ij 

4.72 

35.00 

30.00 

18.00 

9 

10 

7 

1 

3.46 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

6.34 

28.00 

23.00 

18.00 

21 

24 

10.50 

7.44 

16.25 

14 

9.93 

41.50 

36.50 

31.50 

25 

30 

16 

8.10 

19 

17 

8.60 

45.00 

40.00 

35.00 

24 

26 

16 

8.12 

18.25 

16.25 

8.25 

45.00 

40.00 

35.00 

20 

29 

12.50 

6.68 

18.75 

16.75 

8.95 

55.00 

45.00 

27.00 

13 

15 

10 

1 

0.87 

15 

13 

1 

4.13 

40.00 

30.00 

18.00 

15.50 

13 

8.50 

8.13 

15.25 

13.25 

1 

2.68 

40.00 

33.00 

25.00 

22 

30 

13 

6.48 

19.75 

17.75 

8.85 

55.00 

45.00 

27.00 

10 

10 

8 

"”i 

6.66 

11 

9 

1 

8.75 

28.00 

23.00 

18.00 

8 

7.66 

5.75 

9.83 

9.50 

8 

1 

3.67 

27.00 

23.00 

17.00 

9 

10 

6.50 

i 

3.68 

10 

8.25 

1 

7.37 

32.00 

25.00 

18.00 

11 

13 

7 

i 

0.00 

11.50 

9 

1 

2.85 

31.00 

27.00 

20.00 

12 

13 

7 

i 

3.46 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

6.34 

30.00 

25.00 

18.00 

12 

15 

9 

l 

2.24 

12.50 

10.50 

1 

4.28 

36.00 

30.00 

18.00 

20 

29 

12 

6.15 

18.75 

16.75 

8.59 

55.00 

45.00 

27.00 

23 

25 

16 

8.69 

17.75 

15 

8.15 

45.00 

40.00 

34.00 

10 

10 

7 

9.46 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

1.48 

30.00 

26.00 

17.00 

12 

15 

9 

i 

1.61 

14 

12 

1 

5.48 

40.00 

30.00 

18.00 

7 

8 

5.50 

2 

0.00 

8 

7 

2 

5.45 

23.00 

19.00 

15.00 

12 

13 

7.50 

9.87 

12.50 

10.50 

1 

3.81 

30.00 

25.00 

18.00 

20 

25 

12.50 

6.56 

18 

16 

8.39 

47.00 

41.00 

27.00 

23 

29 

16 

8.69 

17.50 

15.50 

8.42 

45.00 

40.00 

33,00 

18 

25 

12.50 

7.14 

18 

16 

9.14 

47.00 

38.00 

22.80 

15 

13 

8.50 

8.72 

15 

13 

1 

3.33 

38.00 

33.00 

25.00 

17 

17 

10.50 

9.42 

15.50 

13.50 

1 

2.10 

40.00 

35.00 

25.00 

. 12 

13 

7.50 

1 

3.27 

11 

9 

1 

5.73 

30.00 

25.00 

18.00 

10 

10 

7 

1 

1.66 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

4.00 

30.00 

25.00 

17.00 

15 

13 

8.50 

1 

0.97 

14.50 

12,50 

1 

6.13 

35.00 

29.00 

25.00 

7 

9 

5.50 

1 

0.89 

10 

8 

1 

5.84 

22.00 

20.00 

12.00 

8 

7.66 

5.75 

1 

1.61 

10 

8 

1 

6.16 

29.00 

22.00 

17.00 

11 

13 

8 

1 

0.52 

12 

10 

1 

3.16 

32.00 

27.00 

20.00 

24 

32 

18.50 

8.85 

18.75 

16.75 

8.01 

50.00 

45.00 

35.00 

9 

10 

6 

1 

4.45 

9.50 

8 

1 

9.27 

25.00 

22.00 

13.00 

10 

10 

6.50 

1 

0.40 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

3.60 

30.00 

25.00 

17.00 

22 

30 

13 

6.14 

19.75 

17.75 

8.39 

55.00 

45.00 

27.00 

19.50 

25 

11.50 

6.46 

18 

16 

8.98 

49.00 

41.00 

27.00 

17 

20 

12 

8.39 

16 

14 

9.79 

40.00 

35.00 

27.00 

22 

24 

14 

9.15 

16.50 

' 14.50 

9.47 

45.00 

40.00 

32.00 

13 

13 

7 . 

1 

2.28 

11 

9 

1 

5.79 

30.00 

26.00 

20.00 

24 

32 

18.50 

8.28 

19.50 

17.50 

7.83 

55.00 

45.00 

35.00 

17.50 

21 

11 

7.69 

16 

14 

9.79 

40.00 

35.00 

27.00 

$ 

6 

4.50 

2 2.50 

7 

6 

3 0.09 

16.50 

15.00 

9.00 

Live-Stock. 
Inside  measure  of  car,  31 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 


40 

41 

l2 

43 


— 4 


70 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


TABLE  VIII.— RAILROAD  TARIFF 

Showing  distances  from  Kansas  City  or  St.  Joseph,  Missouri,  Atchison  or  Leavenworth,  Kan- 

any  railroad  line  operated 


Between 

Kansas  City,  Mo., 
St.  Joseph,  Mo., 
Atchison,  Kas., 
Leavenworth,  Kas., 

And 


44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 
61 
62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 
81 
82 

83 

84 

85 


Hill  City 

Holton 

Howard 

Hoxie 

Hutchinson 

Independence... 

Ingalls 

Iola 

Jetmore 

Julian,  Neb 

Junction  City.... 

Kingman 

Kinsley 

Lawrence 

Larned 

Leoti 

Lincoln  Center.. 

Lincoln,  Neb 

Lyndon 

Lyons 

McPherson 

Manhattan 

Maukato 

Manley,  Neb 

Marion 

Meade  Center.... 
Medicine  Lodge. 

Minneapolis 

Mound  Valley... 

Ness  City 

Newton 

Norton 

Oberlin 

Olathe 

Omaha,  Neb 

Osborne 

Ottawa 

Paola.. 

Paul,  Neb 

Phillipsburg 

Pleasanton 

Pratt 

Rush  Center.,,., 


In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


CD 

& 

B 

CO 

OQ 

Merchandise. 

Car-Loads. 

Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs.  ' 

First  class 

Second  class 

Third  class 

Fourth  class 

Fifth  class 

( 

i 

\ 

i 

j 

2 

» 

a 

32 

> 

1 

J 

i 

i 

Class  B 

( 

i 

1 

( 

2 

32 

32 

p 

( 

I 

i 

1 

p 

32 

32 

p 

( 

1 

1 

1 

! 

2 

32 

32 

S 

324 

72 

64 

59 

52 

44 

37 

24 

22 

18 

13 

55 

29 

24 

19 

15 

12 

12 

10 

8 

8 

e 

204 

64 

56 

50 

39 

35 

32 

23 

18 

15 

li 

357 

79 

71 

65 

55 

49 

40 

29 

25 

20 

15.50 

234 

66 

58 

50 

41 

36 

32.50 

24 

20 

16 

12 

166 

52 

47 

42 

31 

26 

26 

21 

13 

13 

10 

393 

93 

82 

74 

65 

58 

50 

35 

29 

26 

18 

110 

49 

40 

35 

23 

20 

22 

17 

10 

) 

7.50 

354 

87 

79 

70 

60 

52 

44 

30 

26 

23 

17 

140 

40 

30 

25 

20 

13 

17 

12.50 

10 

9 

7 

r 

139 

50 

45.50 

37 

28 

24 

23 

18 

14 

11 

7.50 

273 

69 

61 

53 

44 

38 

34.50 

25 

21 

18 

13 

332 

78 

71 

63 

55 

48 

40 

28 

23 

20 

16 

34 

25 

20 

15 

13 

7 

S 

1 

8 

7 

t 

6 

£ 

308 

72 

64 

55 

47 

40 

36.50 

26 

23 

20 

14 

430 

90 

81 

73 

60 

54 

46 

38 

29 

23 

18 

221 

58 

52 

46 

35 

31 

28 

21 

18 

13.50 

10.50 

206 

40 

35 

25 

22.50 

16 

17 

13 

11 

9 

7 

83 

35 

31 

25 

21 

17 

16 

12 

10 

c 

1 

7 

251 

61 

56 

50 

40 

35 

32 

24 

20 

16 

12 

196 

61 

56 

50 

40 

35 

32 

24 

20 

16 

12 

119 

40 

35 

28 

23 

19 

17 

13 

11 

9 

7 

191 

53 

47.50 

40 

32 

27.50 

26 

19.50 

16 

12 

S 

i - 

181 

40 

30 

25 

20 

13 

17 

12.50 

10 

9 

1 

7 

172 

52 

47 

40 

32 

27.50 

26 

19 

16 

12 

8.50 

369 

90 

80 

70 

61 

54 

46 

32 

27 

26 

18 

329 

80 

67 

59 

51 

44 

41 

27 

23 

22 

16 

195 

56 

50 

42.50 

34 

29 

27 

21 

17 

13 

10 

149 

50 

45 

40 

30 

25 

25 

20 

10 

10 

8 

350 

74 

66 

61 

54 

46 

39 

26 

24 

18 

13 

201 

58 

52 

45 

36 

31 

30 

22 

18 

14 

10.50 

318 

72 

64 

59. 

52 

44 

37 

24 

22 

18 

13 

347 

80 

72 

67 

56 

50 

41 

30 

25 

20 

16 

21 

20 

18 

16 

13 

9 

9 

7 

6 

5 

3.50 

212 

40 

30 

25 

20 

13 

17 

12.50 

10 

9 

7 

218 

56 

50 

43 

34 

29 

27 

21.50 

17 

14 

10 

58 

29 

24 

19 

15 

12 

12 

10 

8 

7 

5.50 

43 

28 

22 

17 

14 

12 

12 

10 

8 

7 

5 

145 

40 

30 

25 

20 

13 

17 

12.50 

10 

9 

7 

283 

61 

56 

51 

46 

38 

32 

24 

21 

16 

11.50 

74 

35 

27 

22 

16 

13 

15 

12 

8 

7 

5.25 

276 

74 

67 

57 

48 

42 

36 

25 

22 

18 

13.50 

318 

66 

58 

53 

48 

42 

34 

26 

22 

16 

13 

TRANSPORTA  TION. 


71 


RATES  AND  DISTANCES  — Continued. 

sas,  to  points  named;  also  rates  on  merchandise  and  car-load  freights  between  said  points  via 
between  the  stations  named. 


Commodities,  Car-Loads.  Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 
In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


tr* 

«>  crw  £ 

GO 

Soft  coal,  lump  or  nut 

W 

00  P 

3 

0 a t»  J 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  rye,  corn 
meal,  bran,  mill  feed,  mill 
stuffs,  chop,  sorghum  seed, 
grain  screenings,  oat  hulls.. 

er1 

Rate  per  ton  per  mile  on 
corn,  oats,  rye,  barley, 

cents  per  car-load. 

1 

: 

3 

3 

3* 

X> 

s 

ZJ 

mber,  lath,  shingles,  fence 
>osts  (cedar),  sash,  doors, 
dinds,  moulding,  bed  slats, 
awdust 

t in  barrels,  sacks,  or 
nilk 

te  per  ton  per  mile  on 

a ft  1 

ieat,  oat  meal,  flour,  flax 
eed,  hemp  seed,  millet 
eed,  broom-corn  seed, 
astor  beans 

j 

( 

t 

( 

-1 

p 

3 

r-i- 

P 

Horses  and  mules 

Cattle  and  hogs 

Sheep,  single-deck  car ( 

! 

i 

< 

1 

1 

Cts 

Mills 

Cts 

Mills 

16.50 

23 

11 

6.79 

16 

14 

'8.64 

44.00 

35.00 

25.00 

44 

7 

8 

4 

1 

4.54 

7 

6 

2 1.82 

17.00 

15.00 

13.50 

45 

17 

17 

9 

8.82 

15.25 

13.25 

1 2.99 

37.00 

32.00 

27.00 

46 

18.50 

25 

12 

6.72 

18 

16 

18.68 

48.00 

38.00 

25.00 

47 

17 

13 

10 

8.55 

15.50 

13.50 

1 

1.54 

40.00 

35.00 

27.00 

48 

11 

14 

8 

9.64 

12 

10 

1 

2.05 

33.00 

28.00 

21.00 

49 

24 

30 

18.50 

9'.  41 

18.25 

16.25 

8.27 

49.00 

43.00 

35.00 

50 

10 

10 

6.50 

1 

1.81 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

5.45 

30.00 

25.00 

17.00 

51 

23 

26 

17 

9.32 

17.50 

15.50 

8.75 

45.00 

40.00 

30.00 

52 

8.50 

10 

7.50 

...* 

6.66 

12 

10 

i 

4.28 

30.00 

28.00 

16.80 

53 

12 

13 

8.50 

*”l 

2.23 

12.50 

10.50 

1 

5.10 

32.00 

25.00 

18.00 

54 

18 

21 

10 

7.32 

16 

14 

1 

0.25 

40.00 

35.00 

28.00 

55 

22 

24 

15 

9.04 

16.50 

14.50 

8.74 

45.00 

40.00 

32.00 

56 

5 

6.66 

3 

1 

7.65 

7 

6 

3 

5.29 

16.00 

13.00 

12.50 

57 

20 

23 

12 

7.79 

16.25 

14.25 

9.25 

43.00 

38.00 

28.00 

58 

21 

29 

16.50 

7.67 

19.25 

17.25 

8.02 

55.00 

45.00 

29.00 

59 

15 

16 

10.50 

9.50 

15.50 

13.50 

1 

2.22 

40.00 

35.00 

25.00 

60 

10.50 

10 

7.15 

...* 

4.91 

14 

12 

1 

1.66 

33.00 

30.00 

18.00 

61 

9 

10 

6 

”’l 

4.47 

9 

8 

1 

9.27 

22.00 

18.00 

16.00 

62 

17 

17 

10.50 

8.37 

15.50 

13.50 

1 

0.75 

40.00 

35.00 

25.00 

63 

15 

13 

9 

9.18 

15.25 

13.25 

1 

3.52 

40.00 

35.00 

25.00 

64 

9 

10 

6.50 

1 

0.92 

11 

9 

1 

5.13 

30.00 

25.00 

18.00 

65 

12 

15 

9 

9.42 

14 

12 

1 

2.56 

40.00 

30.00 

18.00 

66 

8.50 

10 

7.50 

V 

5.63 

13 

11 

1 

2.15 

33.00 

30.00 

18.00 

67 

13 

13 

8.50 

9.88 

14.50 

12 

1 

3.95 

35.00 

30.00 

22.00 

68 

24 

28 

15.50 

8.40 

18.25 

16.25 

8.81 

45.00 

40.00 

35.00 

69 

22 

25 

11.75 

7.14 

16.50 

14 

8.51 

42.50 

37.50 

32.00 

70 

13 

15 

9 

9.23 

15 

13 

1 

3.33 

40.00 

30.00 

18.00 

71 

10 

13 

7 

9.39 

12 

10 

1 

7.45 

32.00 

27.00 

20.00 

72 

18 

23 

12.50 

7.14 

16 

14 

8.00 

45.00 

38.00 

27.00 

73 

15 

13 

8.50 

8.45 

15 

13 

1 

2.93 

40.00 

35.00 

25.00 

74 

15.50 

23 

12 

7.55 

16 

14 

8.80 

44.00 

34.00 

20.40 

75 

18.50 

26 

12.50 

7.20 

18 

16 

9.22 

48.00 

38.00 

23.00 

76 

5 

3.66 

3.25 

"’3 

0.95 

6 

5 

4 

7.62 

14.00 

10.00 

8.00 

77 

8.50 

10 

7.50 

...* 

5.08 

14 

12 

1 

1.32 

33.00 

30.00 

18.00 

78 

13 

16 

10.50 

9.63 

15.50 

13.50 

1 

2.38 

40.00 

31.00 

19.00 

79 

7 

8 

3.75 

1 

2.93 

n 

6 

2 

0.69 

17.00 

16.00 

13.50 

80 

6 

5 

"*3.75 

1 

7.44 

7 

6 

2 

7.91 

17.00 

15.00 

12.00 

81 

8.50 

10 

7.50 

...* 

6.52 

12 

10 

1 

3.79 

33.00 

30.00 

18.00 

82 

13.50 

20 

30.25 

7.24 

16 

14 

9.89 

40.00 

30.00 

18.00 

83 

7.75 

7.33 

4.50 

1 

2.16 

8.50 

7.50 

2 

0.27 

23.00 

20.00 

16.00 

84 

20 

22 

11.25 

8.15 

16 

14 

1 

0.14 

40.00 

35.00 

30.00 

85 

18 

22 

12.50 

7.86 

16 

14 

.... 

. 

8.81 

40.00 

35.00 

27.00 

86 

Live-Stock. 
Inside  measure  of  car,  31 
feet.  In  dollars  and 


72 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


TABLE  VIII.— RAILROAD  TARIFF 

Showing  distances  from  Kansas  City  or  St.  Joseph,  Missouri,  Atchison  or  Leavenworth,  Kan- 

any  railroad  line  operated 


Between 

Kansas  City,  Mo., 
St.  Joseph,  Mo., 
Atchison,  Kas., 
Leavenworth,  Kas. 

And 


87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 
100 
101 
102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 
111 
112 
113 


Russell 

Salina 

Scandia 

Scott  City 

Sedan 

Sharon  Springs... 
Springfield,  Neb. 

Smith  Center 

Stafford 

Stella,  Neb 

Stockton 

Strong  City 

Syracuse 

Valley  Falls 

Verdon,  Neb 

Wakeeney ... 

Walton,  Neb 

Wamego 

Washington 

Wellington 

Wesphalia.... 

Wichita 

Winfield 

Winona 

Yates  Center 

Berlin,  Neb 

Brock,  Neb 


263 

186 

170 

406 

204 

429 

193 

254 

273 

117 

250 

148 

470 

36 

111 

321 

197 

104 

120 

261 

101 

222 

247 

398 

124 

160 

169 


la  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


Merchandise. 


64 

56 

51 

81 

62 

89 

40 

56 

69 

33 

61 

51 
94 
24 
30 
74 
40 
37 
45 
73 
43 
66 
73 
87 

52 
40 
40 


58 

50 

45.50 

74 

57 
80 
30 
50 
61 
25 
56 
43 
84 
20 
23 
66 
35 
34 
39 
63 
38 

58 
63 
79 
43 
30 
30 


50 

42.50 

38 

68 

50 
72 
25 
43 
53 
22 

51 
36 
77 
15 
20 
61 
25 
28 
35 
55 
34 
50 
55 
71 
38 
25 
25 


40 
34 
30 
57 
37 
60 
20 
36 
44 
18 

46 
28 
65 
13 
17 
54 

22.50 
23 

25.50 

47 
25 

41 
47 
59 
28 
20 
20 


Car-Loads. 

Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 


35 
29 
26 
51 
33 
54 
13 
31 

38 
13 

39 
24 
59 
10 
13 
46 
16 
19 
21.50 

40 
18 

36 
40 
53 
23 
13 
13 


32.50 

27 
25 
42 

31 
47 
.17 

28 

34.50 
13 

32 
23 
51 
10 
12 
39 
17 

17 
21 

36.50 

18 

32.50 

36.50 
46 

22 

17 

17 


24 
21 
18 
34 

23 
39 

12.50 
21 

25 
11 

24 
18 
41 

8 

10 

26 
13 
13 

14.50 

25 
16 

24 

25 
37 
17 

12.50 
12.50 


21 

17 

15.50 
27 

16 

30 

10 

17 

22 

8 

21 

15 

32 

7 

8 

24 

11 

11 

12.50 
21 

10 

20 

21 

29 

12 

10 

10 


16 

13 
11 
20 
16 
23 

9 

14 
18 

8 

16 

11 

26 

6 

8 

18 

9 

9 

10 

17 

9 

16 

17 

23 

11 

9 


12 

10 

7.50 

16.50 
12 

19 

7 

10 

13 

6 

11.50 

7.50 
19 

4.50 
6 

13 

7 

7 

7.50 

12.50 
7.50 

12 

12.50 

17 

9 

7 

7 


TRANSPORTATION 


78 


HATES  AND  DISTANCES— Concluded. 

sas,  to  points  named;  also  rates  on  merchandise  and  car-load  freights  between  said  points  via 
between  the  stations  named. 


Commodities,  Car-Loads.  Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 
In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


Lumber,  lath,  shingles,  fence 
posts  (cedar),  sash,  doors, 
blinds,  moulding,  bed  slats, 

cc 

Soft  coal,  lump  or  nut 

/i  SO 

ft  CD  t»  J 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  rye,  corn 
meal,  bran,  mill  feed,  mill 
stuffs,  chop,  sorghum  seed, 
grain  screenings,  oat  hulls.. 

rr 

Rate  per  ton  per  mile  on 
corn,  oats,  rye,  barley, 

cents  per  car-load. 

J 

B 

B 

t in  barrels,  sacks,  or 
>ulk 

te  per  ton  per  mile  on 

oft,  nnnl 

leat,  oat  meal,  flour,  flax 
eed,  hemp  seed,  millet 
eed,  broom-corn  seed, 
astor  beans 

p 

B 

p 

Horses  and  mules 

Cattle  and  hogs 

Sheep,  single-deck  car 

j 

1 

i 

3 

© 

-t 

30 

* 

Cts 

Mills 

Cts 

Mills 

17 

20 

11 

8.36 

16 

14 

1 

0.64 

40.00 

35.00 

25.00 

87 

13 

13 

8.50 

9.14 

15 

13 

1 

3.98 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

88 

12 

15 

9 

1 

0.59 

14 

12 

1 

4.12 

40.00 

30.00 

18.00 

89 

20 

26 

14.50 

7.14 

18.50 

16.50 

8.12 

55.00 

45.00 

27.00 

90 

15 

18.66 

9 

8.82 

15.25 

12 

1 

1.77 

35.00 

30.00 

25.00 

91 

22 

30 

13 

6.06 

19.75 

17.75 

8.27 

55.00 

45 . 00 

30.00 

92 

8.50 

10 

7.50 

* 

5.39 

14 

12 

1 

2.43 

33.00 

30.00 

18.00 

93 

13.50 

17 

10 

7.87 

15.75 

13.75 

1 

0.82 

40.00 

30.00 

18.00 

94 

18 

21 

11.25 

8.24 

16 

14 

1 

0.26 

40.00 

35.00 

28.00 

95 

8.50 

10 

7 

...* 

6.93 

10 

9 

1 

5.38 

24.20 

22.00 

13.20 

96 

16.50 

21 

10.75 

8.60 

16 

14 

1 

1.20 

43.00 

33.00 

21.00 

97 

12 

13 

8 

1 

0.81 

12.50 

10.50 

1 

4.19 

30.00 

25.00 

18.00 

98 

24 

32 

18.50  1 

7.87 

20 

18 

7.66 

55.00 

45.00 

35.00 

99 

6 

5 

3.75 

2 

0.83 

6.50 

6 

3 

3.33 

10.00 

10.00 

10.00 

100 

8.50 

10 

6.50 

1 

1.72 

10 

9 

1 

7.11 

23.10 

21.00 

12. -60 

101 

17.50 

23 

11.25 

7.01 

16 

14 

8.72 

45.00 

38.00 

27.00 

102 

10.50 

10 

7.15 

...* 

5.07 

14 

11 

1 

1.17 

33.00 

30.00 

18.00 

103 

9 

10 

6.50 

1 

2.50 

10.50 

8.50 

1 

6.35 

28.00 

23.00 

18.00 

104 

9 

12 

8 

1 

3.33 

11.50 

9.50 

l 

5.83 

35.00 

30.00 

18.00 

105 

18 

21 

9 

6.89 

15.75 

13.75 

1 

0.53 

40.00 

35.00 

30.00 

106 

9 

10 

7 

1 

3.86 

10 

8.50 

1 

6.83 

28.00 

24.00 

18.00 

107 

17 

13 

8.50 

7.65 

15.50 

13.50 

1 

2.16 

40.00 

35.00 

27.00 

108 

18 

21 

9 

7.28 

15.75 

13.75 

1 

1.13 

40.00 

35.00 

28.00 

109 

21 

29 

12 

6.03 

19 

17 

8.54 

55.00 

45.00 

27.00 

110 

11 

13 

7 ' 

1 

1.29 

11.50 

9 

i 

4.51 

31.00 

36.00 

20.00 

111 

8.50 

10 

7.15 

...* 

5.83 

12 

10 

l 

2.50 

33.00 

30.00 

18.00 

112 

8.50 

10 

7.15 

...* 

5.63 

12 

10 

i 

1.83 

30.80 

28.00 

16.80 

113 

Live-Stock. 
Inside  measure  of  car,  31 
feet.  In  dollars  and 


* From  Rich  Hill,  Mo.,  add  85  miles  to  the  distance  given. 


AUTHORITIES  FOR  RATES  QUOTED. 

Atchison,  Topeka  & Santa  Fe  Railroad  Company:  Tariffs  No.  3-L,  December  20,  1890,  No. 
6-G,  December  1, 1890,  and  Coal  Tariff  No.  9-E. 

Missouri  Pacific  Railroad  Company:  Tariffs  No.  1231,  February  15,  1891,  No.  1234,  March  1, 
1891,  and  Coal  Tariff  No.  427-B. 

Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company : Tariffs  Nos.  M-775,  and  S-321. 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  & Pacific  Railroad  Company:  Tariffs  No.  295,  April  30,  1890,  No.  325, 
November  3,  1890,  No.  297-A,  September  1,  1890,  No.  303,  June  1, 1890,  and  No.  296,  April  30,  1890. 


74 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


TABLE  IX.— REASONABLE  MAXIMUM 

Showing  distances  from  Kansas  City,  Leavenworth,  Atchison,  or  Elwood,  Kansas,  to  said  points, 
authorized  by  House  bill  No.  743,  passed  the  Kansas  House  of  Rep- 


Between 

Kansas  City,  Kas., 
Leavenworth,  Kas., 
Atchison,  Kas.,  or 
Elwood,  Kas., 

And 

g 

GO* 

<r+- 

$3 

a 

o 

CD 

P 

B 

In  cents  and  f ractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 

Merchandise. 

Car-Loads. 

Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 

n 

First  class 

Second  class 

Third  class 

Fourth  class 

Fifth  class 

( 

! 

j 

i 

1 

2 

p 

33 

22 

> 

( 

i 

1 

1 

] 

p 

ST 

33 

( 

i 

i 

( 

p 

iT 

p 

( 

j 

\ 

j 

! 

p 

( 

i 

i 

j 

30 

Ji 

H 

1 

Abilene 

163 

45 

39 

31 

23.50 

17.75 

16.25 

13.50 

11.50 

9.40 

7.40 

2 

Alma 

104 

33 

27 

22 

17.50 

13.75 

12.75 

10.50 

8.80 

7.40 

5.40 

3 

Anthony 

282 

68 

54 

42 

31.50 

23.50 

22 

19 

16.60 

14 

12 

4 

Arkalon 

395 

80 

66 

54 

37.50 

29.50 

28 

25 

21.40 

18.80 

16.80 

5 

i^shland 

394 

79 

65 

53 

37 

29 

27.50 

24.50 

21 

18.40 

16.40 

6 

Atwood 

374 

77 

63 

51 

36 

28 

26.50 

23.50 

20.20 

17.60 

15.60 

7 

Beloit 

184 

49 

43 

33 

25.50 

18.75 

17.25 

14.50 

12.50 

10.20 

8.20 

8 

Benton 

209 

54 

47 

35 

28 

20 

18.50 

15.75 

13.75 

11.20 

9.20 

9 

Bird  City 

401 

80 

66 

54 

37.50 

"29.50 

28 

25 

21.40 

18.80 

16.80 

10 

Blaine 

96 

31 

25 

20 

16.50 

13.25 

12.25 

10 

8.40 

7.20 

5.25 

11 

Blue  Mound 

117 

35 

29 

23 

18.50 

14.25 

13.25 

11 

9.20 

1.6  0 

5.60 

12 

Blue  Rapids 

95 

31 

25 

20 

16.50 

13.25 

12.25 

10 

8.40 

7.20 

5.25 

13 

Buffalo...., 

140 

40 

34 

28 

21 

16 

14.50 

12.25 

10.25 

8.40 

6.40 

14 

Burlington 

104 

33 

27 

22 

17.50 

13.75 

12.75 

10.50 

8.80 

7.40 

5.40 

15 

Clay  Center 

147 

41 

35 

29 

21.50 

16.50 

15 

12.50 

10.50 

8.60 

6.60 

16 

Colby 

390 

79 

65 

53 

37 

29 

27.50 

24.50 

21 

18.40 

16.40 

17 

Cold  water 

368 

77 

63 

51 

36 

28 

26.50 

23.50 

20.20 

17.60 

15.60 

18 

Columbus 

148 

42 

36 

29.50 

22 

17 

15.50 

12.75 

10.75 

8.80 

6.80 

19 

Concordia 

155 

43 

37 

30 

22.50 

17.25 

15.75 

13 

11 

< 

J 

20 

Corning 

55 

23 

17 

15 

12.50 

10.50 

9.50 

7.75 

6.75 

i 

4.50 

21 

Council  Grove 

152 

42 

36 

29.50 

22 

17 

15.50 

12.75 

10.75 

8.80 

6\80 

22 

Dighton 

381 

78 

64 

52 

36.50 

28.50 

27 

24 

20.60 

18 

16 

23 

Dodge  City 

368 

77 

63 

51 

36 

28 

26.50 

23.50 

20.20 

17.60 

15.60 

24 

Dresden 

350 

75 

61 

49 

35 

27 

25.50 

22.50 

19.40 

16.80 

14.80 

25 

El  Dorado 

195 

51 

45 

34 

26.50 

19.25 

17.75 

15 

13 

10.60 

8.60 

26 

Ellsworth 

223 

56 

48 

36 

28.50 

20.50 

19 

18.25 

14.20 

11.60 

9.60 

27 

Emporia 

113 

35 

29 

23 

18.50 

14.25 

13.25 

11 

9.20 

7.60 

5.60 

28 

Erie 

120 

36 

30 

24 

19 

14.50 

13.50 

11.25 

9.40 

7.70 

5.70 

29 

Eureka 

155 

43 

37 

30 

22.50 

17.25 

15.75 

13 

11 

< 

3 

7 

30 

Fort  Scott 

99 

32 

26 

21 

17 

13.50 

12.50 

10.25 

8.60 

7.30 

5.30 

31 

Fredonia 

152 

42 

36 

29.50 

22 

17 

15.50 

12.75 

10.75 

8.80 

6.80 

32 

Garden  City 

418 

82 

68 

56 

38.50 

30.50 

29 

26 

22.20 

19.60 

17.60 

33 

Garnett 

83 

29 

23 

18 

15.50 

12.5D 

11.50 

9.50 

8 

7 

5.10 

34 

Girard 

125 

37 

31 

25 

19.50 

14.75 

13.75 

11.50 

9.60 

7.80 

5.80 

35 

Goodland 

423 

82 

68 

56 

38.50 

30.50 

29 

26 

22.20 

19.60 

17.60 

36 

Grainfield 

356 

76 

62 

50 

35.50 

27.50 

26 

23 

19.80 

17.20 

15.20 

37 

Great  Bend 

286 

69 

55 

43 

32 

24 

22.50 

19.50 

17 

14.40 

12.40 

38 

Greensburg 

306 

71 

57 

45 

33 

25 

23.50 

20.50 

17.80 

15.20 

13.20 

39 

Gridley 

114 

35 

29 

23 

18.50 

14.25 

13.25 

11 

9.20 

7.60 

5.60 

40 

Hartland 

447 

85 

71 

59 

40 

32 

30.50 

27.50 

23.40 

20.80 

18.80 

41 

Hays  City 

286 

69 

55 

43 

32 

24 

22.50 

19.50 

17 

14.40 

12.40 

42 

Hiawatha 

40 

20 

15.50 

13.50 

11 

9 

8 

7 

I 

6 

5.40 

4.20 

43 

Hill  City 

324 

72 

58 

46 

33.50 

25.50 

24 

21 

18.20 

15.60 

13.60 

TRANSPORTATION. 


n 


Freight  routes,  house  bill  no.  743. 

with  reasonable  maximum  rates  on  merchandise  and  car-load  freights  between  said  stations,  as 
resentatives  February,  1891,  but  killed  in  the  Republican  Senate. 

w 


Commodities,  Car-Loads.  Minimum  weight,  24,000  lbs. 
In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


Hard  and  so: 
gles,  laths, 
blinds,  mo 
posts 

cc 

to 

^ p i—> 

go 

o 

CO  P 

te  co  J 

O 

5'g-B  | 

i-rVi 

— QjSO  ~ 

*- d cr 

cents  per  car-load. 

CD 

CD 

© 

GO  Pi  _ i 
^ P CD 

s*  § 

't  coal,  lump  or  nut 

(See  Note  1.) 

e 

C 

5 ST 

Lrt 

o 

p 

cc 

CD 

CD 

ieat,  oat  meal,  flour,  fls 
eed,  castor  beans,  hem 
eed,  millet  seed 

! 

j 

( 

( 

-t 

33 

P 

s> 

p 

® CD 

P *P 

“ CD 

O >-s 
P e-t 

-"B 

M 

o 

1-1 

CO 

CD 

CO 

P 

O 

p 

CD 

P 

a 

cc 

P* 

CD 

CD 

y 

co. 

' EL  & ^ 
i £§p 

sM 

: cd5^ 

: pJ*& 

O 

CD 

to 

b 

| = B 

: cc  ct- 

: p ~ 

: o 2L 
: 

: J»  a 

: erg 

: so  w 
: *-s 

. i 

►p 

CD 

I-S 

B 

© 

o 

D 

2 

O 

e*- 

CD 

,03 

<r*-QP?  “ S 

C 4 ® 2- 

P$£.®  CD 

*pa3i« 

: Scq 
: 3 B » 

: 2 55  cd 
. P CD  o 

• • CD  % 

: pP 

o 

- P 

P 

P* 

B 

p^ 

cT 

CO 

P^ 

P* 

o 

CP? 

C ft 

p’ 

crq_ 

cd" 

1 

p. 

CD 

O 

K 

o 

p 

: cd  g- 

: i 

Cts 

Mills 

: * 

Cts 

Mills 

IP 

9.30 

8.75 

6.40 

7.85 

11.20 

8.40 

1 

0.31 

34.00 

29.00 

20.25 

7.60 

7 

5.20 

1,0.00 

9 

7.20 

1 

3.84 

28.00 

23.00 

17.25 

11.90 

11 

8.70 

6.17 

13.50 

10.70 

7.59 

41.50 

35.50 

26.00 

14.20 

13.40 

11 

5.57 

15.90 

13 

6.58 

47.50 

41.50 

29.50 

14 

13.20 

10.90 

'5.53 

15.70 

12.80 

6.50 

47.00 

41.00 

29.25 

13.60 

12.80 

10.50 

5.61 

15.30 

12.40 

6.63 

46.00 

40.00 

28.75 

9.90 

9.20 

6.80 

7.39 

11.60 

8.80 

9.57 

36.00 

30.50 

21.25 

10.50 

9.70 

7.30 

6.98 

12,10 

9.30 

8.90 

38.00 

32.00 

22.50 

14.20 

13.40 

11 

5.49 

15.90 

13 

6.48 

47.50 

41.50 

29.50 

7.30 

6.75 

4.95 

’I 

0.32 

8.60 

7 

"i 

4.58 

26.50 

22.00 

16.50 

7.90 

7.30 

5.40 

9.23 

9.40 

7.40 

l 

2.65 

28.00 

24.00 

17.75 

7.30 

6.75 

4.95 

1 

0.42 

8.60 

7 

l 

4.73 

26.50 

22.00 

16.50 

8.60 

8 

6.90 

9.86 

10.40 

7.90 

l 

1.29 

31.50 

26.50 

19.00 

7.60 

7 

5.20 

1 

0.00 

9 

7.20 

l 

3.84 

28.00 

23.00 

17.25 

8.75 

8.15 

6 

8.16 

10.60 

8 

l 

0.88 

32.00 

27.00 

19.25 

14 

13.20 

10.90 

5.59 

15.70 

12.80 

6.56 

47.00 

41.00 

29.25 

13.60 

12.80 

10.50 

5.71 

15.30 

12.40 

6.74 

46.00 

40.00 

28.75 

8.90 

8.30 

6.10 

8.24 

10.80 

8.10 

l 

0.94 

32.50 

27.50 

19.50 

9 

8.45 

6.20 

8.00 

11 

8.20 

l 

0.58 

33.00 

28.00 

19.75 

5.80 

5.40 

3.75 

1 

3.63 

7 

6 

2 

1.82 

20.00 

17.00 

12.50 

8.90 

8.30 

6.10 

8.03 

10.80 

8.10 

1 

0.66 

32.50 

• 27,50 

19.50 

13.80 

13 

10.70 

5.62 

15.50 

12.60 

6.61 

46.50 

40.50 

29.00 

13.60 

12.80 

10.50 

5.71 

15.30 

12.40 

6.74 

46.00 

40.00 

28.75 

13.20 

12.40 

10.10 

5.77 

14.90 

12 

6.85 

45.00 

39.00 

28.25 

10.15 

9.40 

7 

7.18 

11.80 

9 

9.23 

37.00 

31.25 

21.75 

10.70 

9.90 

7.50 

6.73 

12.30 

9.50 

8.52 

38.50 

32.50 

23.00 

7.90 

7.30 

5.40 

9.56 

9.40 

7.40 

i 1 

3.10 

29.00 

24.00 

17.75 

8' 

7.45 

5.50 

9.17 

9.60 

7.50 

1 

2.50 

29.50 

24.50 

18.00 

9 

8.45 

6.20 

8.00 

11 

8.20 

1 

0.58 

33.00 

28.00 

19.75 

7.45 

6.90 

5.10 

1 

0.30 

8.80 

7.10 

1 

4.34 

27.25 

22.50 

17.00 

8.90 

8.30 

6.10 

8.02 

10.80 

8.10 

1 

0.66 

32.50 

27.50 

19.50 

14.60 

13.80 

11.20 

5.36 

16.30 

13.40 

6.41 

48.50 

42.50 

30.00 

7 

6.45 

4.65 

1 

1.20 

8.20 

6.80 

1 

6.38 

25.00 

21.00 

15.50 

8.15 

7.60 

5.60 

8.96 

9.80 

7.60 

1 

2.16 

30.00 

25.00 

18.25 

14.60 

13.80 

11.20 

5.30 

16.30 

13.40 

6.34 

48.50 

42.50 

30.00 

13.40 

12.60 

10.30 

5.79 

15.10 

12.20 

6.85 

45.50 

39.50 

28.50 

12 

11.20 

8.90 

6.22 

13.70 

10.90 

7.62 

42.00 

36.00 

26.50 

12.40 

11.60 

9.30 

6.08 

14.10 

11.30 

7.39 

43.00 

37.00 

27.25 

7.90 

7.30 

5.40 

9.47 

9.40 

7.40 

1 

2.98 

29.00 

24.00 

17.75 

15.20 

14.40 

11.50 

5.14 

16.90 

14 

6.26 

50.00 

44.00 

30.75 

12 

11.20 

8.90 

6.22 

13.70 

10.90 

7.62 

' 42.00 

36.00 

26.50 

5.20 

4.80 

3.30 

1 

6.50 

6.25 

5.40 

2 

7.00 

17.00 

14.75 

11.00 

12.60 

11.80 

9.50 

5.86 

14.30 

11.50 

7.10 

43.50 

37.50 

27.50 

Live-Stock. 
Inside  measure  of  car,  31 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 


n 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


TABLE  IX.— REASONABLE  MAXIMUM’FRElGHf 

Showing  distances  from  Kansas  City,  Leavenworth,  Atchison,  or  Elwood,  Kas.,  to  said  points, 
authorized  by  House  bill  No.  743,  passed  the  Kansas  House  of  Rep- 


Between 


In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


Merchandise. 


Leavenworth,  Kas., 
Atchison,  Kas.,  or 
Elwood,  Kas., 

And 

CD 

33 

First  class. 

Second  class 

Third  class 

Fourth  class 

1 

| Fifth  class 

( 

i 

i 

i 

j 

p 

33 

> 

1 

i 

1 

j 

! 

Class  B 

( 

i 

i 

( 

p 

23 

in 

in 

p 

< 

1 

1 

l 

Class  I) 

< 

1 

1 

1 

t 

p 

p 

30 

X 

p 

44 

Holton 

55 

23 

17 

15 

12.50 

10.50 

9.50 

7.75 

6.75 

6 

4.50 

45 

Howard 

204 

52 

46 

34.50 

27 

19.50 

18 

15.25 

13.25 

10.80 

8.80 

46 

Hoxie  

357 

76 

62 

50 

35.50 

27.50 

26 

23 

19.80 

17.20 

15.20 

47 

Hutchinson 

234 

58 

49 

37 

29 

21 

19.50 

16.75 

14.60 

12 

10 

48 

Independence 

166 

45 

39 

31 

23.50 

17.75 

16.25 

13.50 

11.50 

9.40 

7.40 

49 

Ingalls 

393 

79 

65 

53 

37 

*29 

27.50 

24.50 

2} 

18.40 

16.40 

50 

Iola 

110 

34 

28 

22.50 

18 

14 

13 

10.75 

i 

\ 

7.50 

5.50 

51 

Junction  City 

139 

40 

34 

28 

21 

16 

14.50 

12.25 

10.25 

8.40 

6.40 

52 

Jetmore 

354 

75 

61 

49 

35 

27 

25.50 

22.50 

19.40 

16.80 

14.80 

53 

Kingman 

273 

66 

53 

41 

31 

23 

21.50 

18.50 

16.20 

13.60 

11.60 

54 

Kinsley 

332 

73 

59 

47 

34 

26 

24.50 

21.50 

18.60 

16 

14 

55 

Lawrence 

34 

19 

15 

13 

10.50 

8.50 

7.75 

6.50 

5.75 

5.20 

4 

L10 

56 

Larned 

308 

71 

57 

45 

33 

25 

23.50 

20.50 

17 

.80 

15.20 

13.20 

57 

Leoti 

430 

83 

69 

57 

39 

31 

29.50 

26.50 

22.60 

20 

18 

58 

Lincoln  Center 

221 

56 

48 

36 

28.50 

20.50 

19 

16.25 

14.20 

11.60 

9.60 

59 

Lyndon 

83 

29 

23 

18 

15.50 

12.50 

11.50 

9.50 

8 

7 

5.10 

60 

Lindsborg 

207 

54 

47 

35 

28 

20 

18.50 

15.75 

13.75 

11.20 

9.20 

61 

Lyons...: 

251 

62 

51 

39 

30 

22 

20.50 

17.50 

15.40 

12.80 

10.80 

62 

McPherson 

196 

51 

45 

34 

26.50 

19.25 

17.75 

15 

13 

10.60 

8.60 

63 

Manhattan 

119 

36 

30 

24 

19 

14.50 

13.50 

11 

.25 

9.40 

7.70 

5.70 

64 

Mankato 

191 

50 

44 

33.50 

26 

19 

17.50 

14.75 

12.75 

10.40 

8.40 

65 

Marion 

172 

46 

40 

31.50 

24 

18 

16.50 

13 

:.75 

11.75 

9.60 

7.60 

66 

Meade  Center 

369 

78 

63 

51 

36 

28 

26.50 

23.50 

20.20 

17.60 

15.60 

67 

Medicine  Lodge 

329 

73 

59 

47 

34 

26 

24^.50 

21.50 

18.60 

16 

14 

68 

Minneapolis 

195 

51 

45 

34 

26 

19.25 

17.75 

15 

13 

10 

i.60 

8.60 

69 

Mound  Valley 

149 

42 

36 

29.50 

22 

17 

15 

.50 

12.75 

10.75 

8.80 

6.80 

70 

Neal.... 

148 

42 

36 

29.50 

22 

17 

15.50 

12.75 

10.75 

8.80 

6.80 

71 

Neodesha 

164 

45 

39 

31 

23.50 

17.75 

16.25 

13.50 

11.50 

9.40 

7.40 

72 

Ness  City 

350 

75 

61 

49 

35 

27 

25.50 

22.50 

19.40 

16.80 

14.80 

73 

Newton 

201 

52 

46 

34.50 

27 

19.50 

18 

15.25 

13.25 

10 

.80 

8.80 

74 

Norton 

318 

72 

58 

46 

33.50 

25.50 

24 

21 

18.20 

15.60 

13.60 

75 

Oberlin 

347 

75 

61 

49 

35 

27 

25.50 

22.50 

19.40 

16.80 

14.80 

76 

Olathe 

21 

16 

13.50 

11.50 

9.50 

7 

7 

6 

5 

.10 

4.50 

3.50 

77 

Osborne 

218 

56 

48 

36 

28.50 

20.50 

19 

16.25 

14.20 

11 

.60 

9.60 

78 

Ottawa 

58 

24 

18 

15.50 

13 

11 

10 

8 

7 

6.20 

4.60 

79 

Paola 

43 

21 

16 

14 

11.50 

9.50 

8.50 

7.25 

6.25 

5.60 

4 

.30 

80 

Parsons 

137 

39 

33 

27 

20.50 

15.50 

14.25 

12 

10 

8.25 

6.20 

81 

Peru 

198 

52 

46 

34.50 

27 

19.50 

18 

15.25 

13.25 

10.80 

8.80 

82 

Phillipsburg 

283 

68 

54 

42 

31.50 

23.50 

22 

19 

16 

.60 

14 

12 

83 

Pleasanton 

74 

27 

21 

17 

14.50 

12 

11 

9 

7.60 

6.60 

4.90 

84 

Pratt 

276 

68 

54 

42 

31.50 

23.50 

22 

19 

16.60 

14 

12 

85 

Reece 

171 

46 

40 

31.50 

24 

18 

16.50 

13.75 

11.75 

9.60 

7 

.60 

86 

Rush  Center 

318 

72 

58 

46 

33.50 

25.50 

24 

21 

18.20 

15.60 

13.60 

Car-Loads. 

Mininhim  weight,  20,000  lbs. 


TRANSPORTATION. 


77 


RATES,  HOUSE  BILL  No.  743  — Continued. 

with  reasonable  maximum  rates  on  merchandise  and  car-load  freights  between  said  stations,  as 
resentatives  February,  1891,  but  killed  in  the  Republican  Senate. 


Commodities,  Car-Loads.  Minimum  weight,  24,000  lbs. 
In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 

Live-Stock. 
Inside  measure  of  car,  31 
feet.  In  dollars  and 
cents  per  car-load. 

r 

<■ 

; 

r 

< 

c 

c 

Hard  and  soft  lumber,  shin-  | 
gles,  laths,  doors,  sash, 
blinds,  mouldings,  fence 

Salt,  lime,  cement,  stucco 
and  plaster,  in  sacks,  bar- 
rels, or  bulk 

(See  Note  2.) 

Soft  coal,  lump  or  nut 

(See  Note  1.) 

W 

fi  P3 

Wheat,  oat  meal,  flour,  flax 
seed,  castor  beans,  hemp 

seed,  millet  seed 

( See  Note  3.) 

ings,  mill  stuffs 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  rye,  corn 
meal,  bran,  sorghum  seed, 
chop-feed,  grain  screen- 

bran,  etc 

Rate  per  ton  per  mile  on 
corn,  oats,  rye,  barley, 

o 

CO 

CO 

te  per  ton  per  mile  on 
nft  nna!  

Horses  and  mules 

Cattle  and  hogs 

Sheep,  single-deck  car 

E 

< 

t 

1 

c 

Cts 

Mills 

Cts 

Mills 

5.80 

5.40 

3.75 

1 

3.63 

7 

6 

2 

1.82 

20.00 

17.00 

12.50 

10.30 

9.50 

7.10 

6.96 

11.90 

9.10 

8.92 

37.50 

31.50 

22.00 

13.40 

12.60 

10.30 

5.77 

15.10 

12.20 

6.83 

45.50 

39.50 

28.50 

10.90 

10 

7.70 

6.58 

12.50 

9.70 

8.29 

39.00 

33.00 

23.50 

9.30 

8.75 

6.40 

7.71 

11.20 

8.40 

1 

0.12 

34.00 

29.00 

20.25 

14 

.13.20 

10.90 

5.55 

15.70 

12.80 

6.51 

47.00 

41.00 

29.25 

7.75 

7.15 

5.30 

9.63 

9.20 

7.30 

"i 

3.27 

28.50 

23.50 

17.50 

8.60 

8 

6.90 

9.93 

10.40 

7.90 

1 

1.37 

31.50 

26.50 

19.00 

13.20 

12.40 

10.10 

5.71 

14.90 

12 

6.78 

45.00 

39.00 

28.25 

11.70 

10.80 

8.50 

6.23 

13.30 

10.50 

7.69 

41.00 

35.00 

25.50 

12.80 

12 

9.70 

5.84 

14.50 

11.70 

7.05 

44.00 

38.00 

27.75 

5 

4.60 

3.15 

i 

8.53 

6 • 

5.20 

”3 

0.59 

16.00 

14.00 

10.50 

12.40 

11.60 

9.30 

6.04 

14.10 

11.30 

7.34 

43.00 

37.00 

27.25 

14.80 

14 

11.30 

5.26 

16.50 

13.60 

6.33 

49.00 

43.00 

30.25 

10.70 

9.90 

7.50 

6.79 

12.30 

9.50 

8.60 

/ 38.50 

32.50 

23.00 

7 

6.45 

4.65 

l 

1.20 

8.20 

6.80 

1 

6.38 

'25.00 

21.00 

15.50 

10. £0 

9.70 

7.30 

7.05 

12.10 

9.30 

8.98 

38.00 

32.00 

22.50 

11.30 

10.40 

8.10 

6.45 

12.90 

10.10 

8.05 

40.00 

34.00 

24.50 

10.15 

9.40 

7 

7.14  ! 

11.80 

9 

9.18 

37.00 

31.25 

21.75 

8 

7.45 

5.50 

9.24  ! 

9.60 

7.50 

i 

2.60 

29.50 

24.50 

18.00 

10 

9.30 

6.90 

7.22  1 

11.70 

8.90 

9.32 

36.50 

31.00 

21.50 

9.45 

8.90 

6.60 

7.56  ! 

11.30 

8.50 

9.88 

34.50 

29.50 

20.50 

13.60 

12.80 

10.50 

5.69 

15.30 

12.40 

6.72 

46.00 

40.00 

28.75 

12.80 

12 

9.70 

5.89 

14.50 

11.70 

7.11 

44.00 

38.00 

27.75 

10.15 

9.40 

7 

7.18 

11.80 

9 

9.23 

37.00 

31.50 

21.75 

8.90 

8.30 

6.10 

8.19 

10.80 

8.10 

1 

0.80 

32.50 

27.50 

19.50 

8.90 

8.30 

6.10 

8.24 

10.80 

8.10 

1 

0.94 

32.50 

27.50 

19.50 

9.30 

■ 8.75 

6.40 

7.80 

11.20 

8.40 

l 

0.24 

34.00 

29.00 

20.25 

13.20 

12.40 

10.10 

5.77 

14.90 

12 

* 

6.85 

45.00 

39.00 

28.25 

10.30 

9.50 

7.10 

7.06 

11.90 

9.10 

9.05 

37.50 

31.50 

22.00 

12.60 

11.80 

9.50 

5.97 

14.30 

11.50 

7.23 

43.50 

37.50 

27.50 

13.20 

12.40 

10.10 

5.82 

14.90 

12 

6.92 

45.00 

39.00 

28.25 

4.25 

4 

2.60 

2 

4.76 

5.25 

4.50 

4 

2.85 

13.00 

11.00 

9.00 

10.70 

9.90 

7.50 

6.88 

12.30 

9.50 

8.72 

38.50 

32.50 

23.00 

6 

5.60 

3.90 

1 

3.45 

7.20 

6.15 

’"2 

1.20 

21.00 

17.75 

13.00 

5.40 

5 

3.45 

1 

6.04 

6.50 

5.60 

2 

6.04 

18.00 

15.50 

11.50 

8.45 

7.90 

5.80 

8.47 

10.20 

7.80 

1 

1.39 

31.00 

26.00 

18.75 

10.30 

9.50 

7.10 

7.17 

11.90 

9.10 

9.19 

37.50 

31.50 

22.00 

11.90 

11 

8.70 

6.15 

13.50 

10.70 

7.59 

41.50 

35.50 

26.00 

6.60 

-£.15 

4.35 

1 

1.76 

7.80 

6.50 

1 

7.57 

23.50 

20.00 

14.50 

11.90 

11 

8.70 

6.30 

13.50 

10.70 

7.75 

41.50 

35.50 

26.00 

9.45 

8.90 

6.50 

7.60 

11.30 

8.50 

9.93 

34.50 

29.50 

20.50 

12.60 

11.80 

9.50 

5.97 

14.30 

11.50 

7.23 

43.50  1 

• 37.50 

27.50 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 
61 
62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 
81 
82 

83 

84 

85 


78 


Populist  haUd-Pook. 


TABLE  IX.— REASONABLE  MAXIMUM  FREIGHT 

Showing  distances  from  Kansas  City,  Leavenworth,  Atchison,  or  Elwood,  Kas.,  to  said  points’ 
authorized  by  House  bill  No.  743,  passed  the  Kansas  House  of  Rep. 


In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 


Between 

Kansas  City,  Kas., 
Leavenworth,  Kas., 
Atchison,  Kas.,  or 
Elwood,  Kas., 

And 

a> 

S’ 

B 

Merchandise. 

» 

Car-Loads. 

Minimum  weight,  20,000  lbs. 

ct> 

ob 

First  class 

, 

Second  class 

Third  class 

Fourth  class 

1 

1 Fifth  class 

1 ' i 

( 

j 

i 

1 

j 

Q 

as 

00 

23 

> 

< 

! 

i 

I 

2 

ST 

X 

■jx 

w 

< 

i 

( 

( 

2 

23 

23 

P 

( 

I 

1 

1 

1 

2 

io1 

23 

2/ 

J 

i 

i 

! 

p 

Sf 

23 

23 

87 

Russell — 

263 

64 

52 

40. 

30.50 

22.50 

21 

18 

15.80 

13.20 

11.20 

88 

Salina 

186 

49 

43 

33 

25.50 

18.75 

17.25 

14.50 

12.50 

10.20 

8.20 

89 

Scandia 

170 

46 

40 

31.50 

24 

18 

16.50 

13.75 

11.75 

9.60 

7.60 

90 

Scott  City 

406 

81 

67 

55 

38 

30 

28.50 

25.50 

21.80 

19.20 

17.20 

91 

Sedan ; 

203 

52 

46 

34.50 

27 

19.50 

18 

15.25 

13.25 

10.80 

8.80 

92 

Sharon  Springs.... 

429 

83 

69 

57 

39 

31 

29.50 

26.50 

22.60 

20 

18 

93 

Smith  Center 

254 

62 

51 

39 

30 

22 

20.50 

17.50 

15.40 

12.80 

10.80 

94 

Stafford 

273 

66 

53 

41 

31 

23 

21.50 

18.50 

16.20 

13.60 

11.60 

95 

Stockton 

250 

62 

51 

39 

30 

22 

20.50 

17.50 

15.40 

12.80 

10.80 

96 

Strong  City......... 

148 

42 

36 

29.50 

22 

17 

15.50 

12.75 

10.75 

8.80 

6.80 

97 

Syracuse.. 

470 

87 

73 

61 

41 

33 

31.50 

28.50 

24.20 

21.60 

19.60 

98 

Tonovay 

154 

43 

37 

30 

22.50 

17.25 

15.75 

13 

11 

c 

) 

1 . 

99 

Topeka 

50 

22 

16.50 

14.50 

12 

10 

9 

7.50 

6.50 

5.80 

4.40 

100 

Toronto 

141 

40 

34 

28 

21 

16 

14.50 

12.25 

10.25 

8.40 

6.40 

101 

Tribune 

471 

87 

73 

61 

41 

33 

31.50 

28.50 

24.20 

21.60 

19.60 

102 

Valley  Falls 

36  • 

19 

15 

13 

10.50 

8.50 

7.75 

6.50 

5.75 

5.20 

4 

L 10 

103 

Wakeeney 

321 

72 

58 

46 

33.50 

25.50 

24 

21 

18.20 

15.60 

13.60 

104 

Wamego 

104 

33 

27 

22 

17.50 

13.75 

12.75 

10.50 

8.80 

7.40 

5.40 

105 

Washington 

120 

36 

30 

24 

19 

14.50 

13.50 

11.25 

9.40 

7.70 

5.70 

106 

Wellington 

261 

64 

52 

40 

30.50 

22.50 

21 

18 

15.80 

13.20 

11.20 

107 

Westphalia 

101 

32 

26 

21 

17 

13.50 

12.50 

10.25 

8.60 

7.30 

5.30 

108 

Wichita 

222 

56 

48 

36 

28.50 

20.50 

19 

16.25 

14.20 

11.60 

9.60 

109 

Winfield 

247 

62 

51 

39 

30 

22 

20.50 

17.50 

15.40 

12.80 

10.80 

110 

Winona 

398 

80 

66 

54 

37.50 

29.50 

28 

25 

21.40 

18.80 

16.80 

111 

Yates  Center 

124 

37 

31 

25 

19.50 

14.75 

13.75 

11.50 

9.60 

7.80 

5.80 

TRANSPORTATION. 


?9 


HATES,  HOUSE  BILL  Ho.  743  — Concluded. 


with  reasonable  maximum  rates  on  merchandise  and  car-load  freights  between  said  stations,  as 
resentatives  February,  1891,  but  killed  in  the  Republican  Senate. 


Commodities,  Car-Loads.  Minimum  weight,  24,000  lbs. 
In  cents  and  fractional  hundredths  of  a cent  per  100  lbs. 

Live-Stock. 
Inside  measure  of  car,  31 
feet.  In  dollars  and 
cents  per  car-load. 

GO 

P 

o’ 

P 

P 

P 

M 

w rrcrQ  $a 

Salt,  lime,  cement,  stucco 
and  plaster,  in  sacks,  bar- 
rels, or  bulk 

(See  Note  2.) 

Soft  coal,  lump  or  nut 

(See  Note  1.) 

W 

CO  P 

Wheat,  oat  meal,  flour,  flax 
seed,  castor  beans,  hemp 

seed,  millet,  seed 

(See  Note  3.) 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  rye,  corn 
meal,  bran,  sorghum  seed, 
chop  feed,  grain  screen- 
ings, mill  stuffs 

cr 

Rate  per  ton  per  mile  on 
corn,  oats,  rye,  barley, 

rd  and  soft  lumber,  shin- 
lies,  laths,  doors,  sash, 
>linds,  mouldings,  fence 
>osts  

e 

f 

j 

te  per  ton  per  mile  on 

Aff  Artol 

j 

< 

1 

-s 

p 

3 

® 

p 

Horses  and  mules 

Cattle  and#hogs 

Sheep,  single-deck  car 

1 

i 

< 

1 

1 

3 

5 

3 

Cts 

Mills 

Cts 

Mills 

11.50 

10.60 

8.30 

6.31 

13.10 

10.30 

7.83 

40.50 

34.50 

25.00 

87 

9.90 

9.20 

6.80 

7.20 

11.60 

8.80 

9.46 

36.00 

30.50 

21.25 

88 

9.45 

8.90 

6.50 

7.65 

11.30 

8.50 

1 

0.U0 

34.50 

29.50 

20.50 

89 

14.40 

13.60 

11.10 

5.47 

16.10 

13.20 

6.50 

48.00 

42.00 

29.75 

90 

10.30 

9.50 

7.10 

7.00 

11.90 

9.10 

8.96 

37.50 

31.50 

22.00 

91 

14.80 

14 

11.30 

5.27 

16.50 

13.60 

6.34 

49.00 

43.00 

30.25 

92 

11.30 

10.40 

8.10 

6.38 

12.90 

10.10 

7.95 

40.00 

34.00 

24.50 

93 

11.70 

10.80 

8.50 

6.23 

13.30 

10.50 

7.69 

41.00 

35.00 

25.50 

94 

11.30 

10.40 

8.10 

6.48 

12.90 

10.10 

8.08 

40.00 

34.00 

24.50 

95 

8.90 

8.30 

6.10 

8.24 

10.80 

8.10 

1 

0.95 

32.50 

27.50 

19.50 

96 

15.60 

14.80 

11.70 

5.00 

17.30 

14.40 

6.13 

51.00 

45.00 

31.25 

97 

9 

8.45 

6.20 

8.05 

11 

8.20 

1 

0.65 

33.00 

28.00 

19.75 

98 

5.60 

5.20 

3.60 

1 

4.40 

6.75 

5.80 

2 

3.20 

19.00 

16.25 

12.00 

99 

8.60 

8 

6.90 

9.79 

10.40 

7.90 

1 

1.20 

31.50 

26.50 

19.00 

100 

15.60 

14.80 

11.70 

4.97 

17.30 

14.40 

6.11 

51.00 

45.00 

31.25 

101 

5 

4.60 

3.15 

1 

7.50 

6 

5.20 

2 

8.89 

16.00 

14.00 

10.50 

102 

12.60 

11.80 

9.50 

5.92 

14.30 

11.50 

7.16 

43.50 

37.50 

27.50 

103 

7.60 

7 

5.20 

” i 

0.00 

9 

7.20 

1 

3.84 

28.00 

23.00 

17.25 

104 

8 

7.45 

5.50 

9.16 

9.60 

7.50 

1 

2.50 

29.50 

24.50 

18.00 

105- 

11.50 

10.60 

8.30 

6.36 

13.10 

10.30 

7.89 

40.50 

34.50 

25.00 

106 

• 7.45 

6.90 

5.10 

l 

0.10 

8.80 

7.10 

1 

4.06 

27.25 

22.50 

17.00 

107 

10.70 

9.90, 

7.50 

6.76 

12.30 

9.50 

8.56 

38.50 

-32.50 

23.00 

108 

11.30 

10.40 

8.10 

6.56 

12.90 

10.10 

8.18 

40.00 

34.00 

24.50 

109 

14.20 

13.40 

11 

5.53 

15.90 

13 

6.50 

47.50 

41.50 

29.50 

110 

8.15 

7.60 

5.60 

9.03 

9.80 

7.60 

1 

2.25 

30.00 

25.00 

18.25 

111 

80 


POPULIST  BAND-BOOK, 


Authorities  for  Rates 
Quoted. 


Kansas  Railroad  Commissioners. 
Trans-Missouri  Rly.  Association. 


Per  cent,  over  Railway  Association. 


Trans-Missouri  Rly.  Association. 
Kansas  House  bill  No. 743 


Per  cent,  over  House  bill  No.  743. 


o 

o 

B 

so 

<-i 

CD 

Su 


111 

113 


113 

111 


COMPARATIVE  SUMMARY  OU 


24,835 

24,927 


24,927 

24,835 


Merchandise. 

In  dollars  and  cents. 


82.52 

65.91 


25* 

65.91 

59.82 

q_2_ 

•'lO 


73.49 

57.85 


26* 

57.85 

49.63 

H* 


64.77 

50.76 

27* 

50.76 

39.57 

22 


54.24 

41.88 


29* 

41.88 

29.47 


oqj> 


Car-Loads. 

In  dollars  and  cents. 


48.35 

35.75 


35.75 

22.54 


37 


41.27 

32.52 


26* 

32.52 

21.03 


35i 


n 


31.20 

24.31 


28* 

24.31 

18.11 


25* 


The  Following  Deductions  are  Represented 


Average  rate  of  Railroad  Commissioners.. 

223 

74.3 

66.1 

58.3 

48.9 

43.6 

37.2 

28.1 

Rate  per  ton  per  mile 

1 

6.6.64 

5.9.28 

5.2.29 

4.3.86 

3.9.10 

3.3.36 

2.5.20 

Average  rate  of  Railway  Association 

221 

58.3 

51.2 

44.9 

37.1 

31.6 

28.8 

21.5 

Rate  per  ton  per  mile 

1 

5.2.76 

4.6.33 

4.0.14 

3.3.57 

2.8.60 

2.6.06 

1.9.46 

Average  rate  of  House  bill  No.  743 

223 

53.9 

44.7 

35.6 

26.6 

20.3 

19 

16.3 

Rate  per  mile  per  ton 

1 

4.8.34 

4.0.09 

3.1.93 

2.3.86 

1.8.21 

1.7.04 

1.4.62 

TRANSPORTA  TION. 


81 


I 


TABLES  VII,  VIII,  AND  IX. 


Car-Loads. 

In  dollars  and  cents. 


25.84 

19.51 


32ft 

19.51 

15.55 

20ft 


19.91 

16.18 


23 

16.18 

13.21 

18ft 


15.03 

12.20 


23ft 

12.20 

11.05 


Commodities  in  Car-Loads. 
In  dollars  and  cents. 


ir1 

p B 

g-  B £ O' 

J®  Ch  GO  CD 
OB  * 

P o _ 

g'SeJ** 

£p^£ 

i-4-  e 

p p £■ 
crq  CO  ° 

OQ  tr  JW 
O'  Pj  OB 

(t  o' 


21.73 

16.22 


, 34 

16.22 

11.53 

28ft 


26.94 

18.97 


42 

18.97 

10.76 

43ft 


14.87 

10.82 


37ft 

10.82 

8.34 


n m m h4 

p CD  CD  £ 

I % g,  I 

o' O'er 

P O D 

g B 

® i a ffi 
Q CD  P 
© CD  *— 

3 o-Ik 

B - pb 
co  R 2 

S|5 


16.32 

15.86 


15.86 

13.32 

16 


2 c © P 
£*•  as  p “ 

P ePr-O 

5§# 

i?-§r 

M*0B  B — 

B © ®.CD 

o g'SfCJ 

sis.? 

s"l  B | 


14.21 

13.69 


13.69 

10.56 

22ft 


Live  Stock  in  Car-Loads. 
Inside  measure,  31  feet. 
In  dollars  and  cents. 


5,249.00 

4,174.60 


4,174.60 


p 

p 

C3- 

© 

era 

CO 


4.363.00 

3.529.00 


3,529.00 

3,455.75 

2ft 


go 

B' 

CD 

CD 


P 

C^ 

L 

CO 

o 

© 


3,130.50 

2,519.60 


24ft 

2,519.60 

2,483.00 


in  Cents,  Mills,  and  Hundredths  of  a Mill. 


23.3 

17.9 

13.5 

19.6 

24.3 

13.4 

14.7 

12.8 

47.29 

39.31 

28.23* 

2.0.90 

1.6.05 

1.2.15 

1.7.58 

2.1.80 

1.2.02 

1.3.18 

1.1.48 

2.1.20 

1.7.63 

2.5.31 

17.3 

14.3 

10.8 

14.4 

16.8 

9.6 

14 

12.1 

36.94 

31.23 

22.29* 

1.5.66 

1.2.94 

0.9.77 

1.3.03 

1.5.20 

0.8.68 

1.2.67 

1.0.85 

1.6.69 

1.4.13 

2.0.17 

14 

11.9 

9.9 

10.4 

9.7 

7.5 

12 

9.5 

35.78 

30.58 

21.97* 

1.2.56 

1.0.67 

0.8.88 

0.9.33 

0.8.25 

0.6.72 

1.0.76 

0.8.52 

1.6.04 

1.3.68 

1.9.80 

* Car-load  estimated  at  10,000  lbs.  Cattle,  hogs,  horses,  and  mr1es,  estimated  weight  20,000  lbs. 


/ 


/ 


82 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


commissioners’  rates  reviewed. 

The  freight  rates  promulgated  by  the  Kansas  Board  of  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners, effective  September  1,  1890,  authorized  railroad  companies  doing 
business  in  Kansas,  whenever  said  companies  desired  so  to  do,  to  advance 
freight  rates  twenty-five  per  cent.;  that  is  to  say,  the  rates  authorized  by  said 
commissioners  are  twenty-five  per  cent,  higher  than  rates  charged  by  the  rail- 
road companies  from  Kansas  City,  St.  Joseph,  or  other  Missouri  river  towns. 
The  effect  of  issuing  or  authorizing  a distance  tariff,  wherein  the  rates  are 
higher  than  rates  named  in  railroad  terminal  tariffs,  is  to  discriminate  against 
Kansas  towns;  while  such  discrimination  works  in  favor  of  Kansas  City,  St. 
Joseph,  or  other  Missouri  River  towns.  To  illustrate,  we  will  take  Junction 
City,  Kas.  The  distance  from  Junction  City  to  Council  Grove  is  thirty-seven 
mile,  while  the  distance  from  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  to  Lawrence,  Kas.,  is  forty- 
one  miles.  McCord,  Nave  & Co.,  of  Kansas  City,  sell  to  a merchant  in  Law- 
rence a bill  of  groceries  (groceries  take  fourth-class  rate);  the  freight  rate, 
fourth  class,  from  Kansas  City  to  Lawrence,  is  thirteen  cents  per  100  pounds 
(Santa  Fe  Tariff  No.  3-L).  B.  Rockwell  & Co.,  of  Junction  City,  sell  a bill  of 
groceries  to  a merchant  of  Council  Grove;  distance,  via  the  M.  K.  & T.  Rail- 
road, thirty-seven  miles;  the  freight  rate  under  the  commissioners’  tariff  (and 
it  is  the  only  tariff  used  between  local  points  in  Kansas,  except  where  the 
inter-State  law  compels  them  [the  railroads]  not  to  charge  a greater  rate  to 
intermediate  points)  is  nineteen  cents  per  100  pounds;  in  other  words,  the 
Junction  City  merchant  finds,  when  he  undertakes  to  compete  with  Kansas 
City  in  selling  goods  to  merchants  in  adjoining  counties,  that  he  has  a dis- 
criminating freight  rate  of  forty-six  per  cent,  to  overcome;  this  he  cannot 
do;  therefore  he  retires  from  the  jobbing  trade.  Thus  the  earnings  of  Kansas 
farmers  and  laborers  go  to  swoil  the  bank  account  of  the  Kansas  City  or  St. 
Joseph  merchant. 

It  is  this  kind  of  discrimination  against  Kansas  towns  that  has  built  up 
Missouri  towns  at  the  expense  of  Kansas.  I am  fully  aware  of  the  fact  that 
the  railroads  have  made  a special  tariff  for  Topeka,  Wichita,  Fort  Scott, 
Hutchinson,  Arkansas  City,  Winfield,  Newton,  Salina,  and  a few  other  Kansas 
towns,  but  this  special  rate  only  applies  to  merchandise  — the  first,  second, 
third  and  fourth  classes.  On  car-load  freights,  the  discrimination  has  not 
been  modified  or  removed.  But  time  forbids  further  comparison. 

HOUSE  BILL  NO.  743  BATES. 

The  desired  object  which  we  sought  to  accomplish  by  House  bill  No.  743 
was  to  equalize  freight  rates  in  Kansas,  giving  to  each  county  or  municipality 
equal  opportunities  to  build  up  and  develop  a local  trade;  to  put  the  central 
and  eastern  towns  in  position  to  compete  with  Kansas  City  or  St.  Joseph  in 


TRANSPORTA  TION. 


83 


furnishing  Colorado  with  the  products  of  our  farms,  gardens,  orchards,  dairies, 
and  henneries.  The  average  reductions  of  freight  rates  proposed  by  said  bill 
(merchandise  and  car-load  freights)  was  twenty-two  per  cent.,  while  the  actual 
reductions,  on  tonnage  basis,  would  not  exceed  ten  per  cent.  Its  adoption 
would  have  prevented,  in  a great  measure,  the  present  discrimination  against 
Kansas  by  the  railroad  companies.  However,  we  have,  in  preceding  tables, 
shown  by  the  figures  of  the  Kansas  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners,  the 
cost  of  carrying  a ton  of  freight  one  mile,  and  the  average  receipts  for  each 
ton  of  freight  hauled  one  mile,  etc.  Now,  as  we  are  pushed  for  time,  we  sub- 
mit an  alphabetical  list  of  counties  in  the  State  of  Kansas  reached  by  rail- 
road, with  name  of  town  opposite  each  county  referred  to,  in  Tables  VII,  VIII, 
and  IX,  leaving  the  reader  to  compare  rates  proposed  in  Table  IX  with  rates 
in  force  by  authority  of  the  Trans  Missouri  Railway  Association  (Table  VIII), 
and  rates  authorized  by  the  Railroad  Commissioners  (Table  VII).  The  num- 
ber opposite  the  town,  and  under  Table  VII,  VIII,  or  IX,  refers  to  station  num- 
ber given  in  tables. 


Name  of  County. 

Name  of  Town. 

Table. 

vii. 

viii. 

ix. 

Allen 

Iola 

50 

51 

50 

Anderson 

Garnett 

33 

34 

33 

Westphalia 

107 

107 

107 

Barber 

Medicine  Lodge 

67 

70 

66 

Barton 

Great  Bend 

37 

38 

37 

Bourbon 

Fort  Scott 

30 

31 

30 

Brown 

Hiawatha 

42 

43 

42 

Butler 

El  Dorado 

25 

25 

25 

Benton 

8 

8 

8 

Chase 

Strong  City 

96 

98 

96 

Chautauqua 

Sedan  

91 

91 

91 

Cherokee 

Columbus 

18 

18 

18 

Cheyenne 

Bird  City 

9 

9 

9 

Clark 

Ashland 

5 

5 

5 

Clay 

Clay  Center 

15 

15 

15 

Cloud 

Concordia 

19 

19 

19 

Coffev 

Burlington 

14 

14 

14 

Gridley 

39 

40 

39 

Comanche 

Coldwater 

17 

17 

17 

Cowley 

Winfield 

109 

109 

109 

Crawford - 

Girard  

34 

35 

34 

Decatur 

Oberlin 

75 

76 

75 

Dickinson 

Abilene  

1 

1 

1 

Douglas 

Lawrence 

55 

57 

55 

Edwards 

Kinsley 

54 

56 

54 

Elk 

Howard 

45 

46 

45 

Ellis 

Hays  City 

41 

42 

41 

Ellsworth 

Ellsworth 

26 

26 

26 

Finney 

Garden  City 

32 

33 

32 

Ford 

Dodge  City 

23 

23 

23 

Franklin. 

Ottawa 

78 

80 

78 

Geary 

.T n n eti on  City 

51 

54 

51 

Grainfield 

36 

37 

36 

84 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


REFERENCE  LIST  — Continued. 


Name  of  County. 


Graham 

Gray 

Greeley 

Greenwood 


Hamilton.. 

Harper. 

Harvey 

Hodgeman. 

Jackson 

Jefferson.... 

Jewell 

Johnson .... 

Kearny 

Kingman .. 

Kiowa 

Labette 


Lane 

Lincoln. 
Linn 


Logan.... ^... 

Lyon 

Marion 

Marshall 

McPherson. 


Meade 

Miami 

Mitchell 

Montgomery... 

Morris 

Nemaha 

Neosho 

Ness 

Norton 

Osage 

Osborne 

Ottawa 

Pawnee 

Phillips 

Pottawatomie . 


Pratt 

Rawlins,.. 

Reno 

Republic- 

Rice 

Riley 

Rooks 

Rush 

Russell.... 

Saline 

Scott 

Sedgwick. 

Seward.... 

Shawnee.. 


Table. 


Name  of  Town. 


Hill  City 

Ingalls ... 

Tribune 

Eureka 

Reece 

Neal 

Syracuse 

Anthony 

Newton 

Jetmore 

Holton 

Valley  Falls.... 

Mankato 

Olathe 

Hartland 

Kingman 

Greensburg 

Parsons 

Mound  Valley. 

Dighton 

Lincoln  

Pleasanton 

Blue  Mound.... 

Winona 

Emporia 

Marion 

Blue  Rapids.... 

McPherson 

Lindsborg 

Meade  Center.. 

Paola 

Beloit 

Independence. 
Council  Grove. 

Corning 

Erie 

Ness  City 

Norton 

Lyndon 

Osborne 

Minneapolis.... 

Larned 

Phillipsburg.... 

Blaine.. 

Wamego 

Pratt 

Atwood 

Hutchinson  ... 

Scandia 

Lyons 

Manhattan 

Stockton  

Rush  Center... 

Russell 

Salina 

Scott  City 

Wichita 

Arkalon 

Topeka 


vii. 

viii. 

ix. 

43 

44 

43 

49 

50 

49 

101 

101 

29 

29 

29 

1 85 

85 

70 

70 

1 97 

99 

97 

3 

3 

3 

73 

74 

73 

52 

52 

52 

44 

45 

44 

102 

100 

102 

64 

66 

64 

76 

77 

76 

40 

41 

40 

53 

55 

53 

38 

39 

38 

80 

80 

69 

72 

69 

22 

22 

22 

58 

61 

58 

83 

84 

83 

11 

11 

11 

110 

110 

110 

27 

27 

27 

65 

68 

65 

12 

12 

12 

62 

64 

62 

60 

60 

66 

69 

66 

79 

81 

79 

7 

7 

7 

48 

49 

48 

21 

21 

21 

20 

20 

20 

28 

28 

28 

72 

73 

72 

74 

75 

74 

59 

62 

59 

77 

79 

77 

68 

71 

68 

56 

58 

56 

82 

83 

82 

10 

10 

10 

104 

104 

104 

84 

85 

84 

6 

6 

6 

47 

48 

47 

89 

89 

89 

61 

63 

61 

63 

65 

63 

95 

97 

95 

86 

86 

86 

87 

87 

87 

88 

88 

88 

90 

90 

90 

108 

108 

108 

4 

4 

4 

99 

99 

CAMPBELL'S  LETTER. 


85 


REFERENCE  LIST  — Concluded. 


Name  op  County. 


Name  op  Town. 


Sheridan 

Sherman 

Smith 

Stafford 

Sumner 

Thomas 

Trego 

Wabaunsee.. 

Wallace 

'Washington, 

Wichita 

Wilson 


Woodson 


ELoxie 

Good  land 

Smith  Center.... 

Stafford 

Wellington 

Colby 

Wakeeney 

Alma 

Sharon  Springs. 

Washington 

Leoti 

Buffalo 

Fredonia 

Neodesha 

Yates  Center.... 
Toronto  


vii. 


46 

35 

93 

94 
106 

16 

103 

2 

92 
105 
57  • 
13 
31 
71 
111 
100 


Table. 


viii. 


47 

36 

94 

95 
106 

16 

102 

2 

92 

105 

59 

13 

32 


111 


ix. 


46 

35 

93 

94 
106 

16 

103 

2 

92 

105 

57 

13 

31 

71 

111 

100 


[Published  in  the  Nonconformist.] 

THE  CAMPBELL  LETTER. 

“I  wish  to  present  a few  facts  to  the  readers  of  the  Nonconformist  relating 
to  railroads.  I said  facts,  and  I mean  facts,  not  opinions.  People  in  this 
feverish  age  have  not  the  time  to  read  every  man’s  opinion  on  the  many  im- 
portant questions  of  the  day,  but  they  do  have  the  time  to  read  statistical 
facts  when  presented  in  a concise  manner.  What  my  opinion  relating  to  rail- 
roads may  be  is  a matter  of  no  importance  whatever  to  the  general  public; 
but  the  actual  facts  relating  to  the  transportation  question  as  to  reasonable 
rates  is  a matter  of  vast  importance  to  the  people  generally.  In  this  article 
I wish  to  present  to  the  general  public  some  facts  that,  however  startling,  are 
official.  At  a meeting  of  the  railroad  commissioners,  held  in  the  city  of 
Washington  May  28,  1890,  a committee  on  reasonable  rates  was  appointed,  to 
report  at  the  next  convention  of  railroad  commissioners.  That  committee 
consisted  of  W.  B.  Fleming,  of  Kentucky;  Walker  McLaurin,  of  Mississippi; 
David  N.  Mostiand,  of  Maine;  J.  B.  Breathitt,  of  Missouri;  and  John  King,  of 
South  Dakota.  At  a convention  of  railroad  commissioners,  held  at  the  office 
of  the  Inter-State  Commerce  Commission,  at  Washington,  March  3 and  4, 1891, 
Mr.  Fleining,  chairman  of  committee  on  reasonable  rates,  submitted  a long 
and  carefully-prepared  report,  in  which  the  committee  advocated  the  regula- 
tion of  rates  both  by  the  national  and  State  governments;  and  as  a proof 
—5 


86 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


of  the  necessity  of  such  regulation,  appended  to  that  report  the  following 
statements  as  to  the  earnings  of  railroads  in  the  last  sixteen  years: 


Year. 

Miles 
of  road 
in  opera- 
tion. 

Capitali- 

zation. 

Net  traffic 
earnings  per 
year. 

Net  traffic 
earnings 
per  mile. 

Mileage 
which 
entitles  a 
revenue. 

Proportion 
of  earnings 
per  mile  on 
road  built 
at  cost  of 
$30,000  per 
mile. 

Proportion 
of  earn- 
ings per 
mile  on 
fictitious 
capital. 

1874 

69,273 

$58,256 

$189,570,958 

$2,737  57 

69,273 

$1,409  10 

$1,327  47 

1875 

71,759 

61,652 

185,506,437 

2,585  13 

68,694 

1,258  00 

1,327  13 

1876 

73,508 

58,562 

186,452,752 

2,536  50 

67,140 

1,299  50 

1,237  00 

1877 

74,112 

60,678 

170,976,697 

2,307  00 

64,460 

1,142  00 

1,165  00 

1878  

78,960 

59,163 

187,575,167 

2,375  51 

66,068 

1,204  41 

1,171  16 

1879 

79,009 

57,730 

216,544,999 

2,740  76 

62,560 

1,424  10 

1,316  66 

1880 

82,146 

58,624 

255,557,555 

3,111  01 

61,402 

1,591  91 

1,519  10 

1881 

92,971 

60,445 

272,406,785 

2,930  02 

66,965 

1,455  02 

1,475  00 

1882 

104,971 

61,303 

280,316,696 

2,670  42 

73,131 

1,306  9J 

1,363  52 

1883  

110,414 

62,030* 

293,367,285 

2,656  07 

72,415 

1,285  54 

1,370  53 

1884 

115,672 

61,366 

268,064,496 

2,318  32 

70,999 

1,133  66 

1,184  66 

1885 

123,320 

61,398 

269,493,981 

2,185  32 

72,390 

1,067  75 

1,117  57 

1886 

125,185 

61,098 

300,603,564 

2,401  27 

67,847 

1,179  02 

1,222  25 

1887 

137,028 

58,603 

334,989,104 

2,444  67 

72,335 

1,251  67 

1,193  00 

1888 

145,387 

60,731 

301,631,051 

2,074  61 

72,545 

1,024  86 

1,049 

Year.  ^ 

Earnings  each 
year  on  fictitious 
capital. 

Earnings  of  road 
built  subsequent  to 
1874  from  revenue 
on  fictitious  capital 

Total  earnings  from 
fictitious  capital, 
and  from  capital 
furnished  by  rail- 
way users,  and  road 
built  therefrom. 

Miles  of  road 
built  from  tolls 
of  fictitious 
capital,  tolls, 
mileage  preced- 
ing years. 

1874 

$91,957,829 

91,165,867 

$91,957,829 

99,089,290 

3,065 

1875... 

$7,923,423 

3,303 

1876 

82,196,298 

16,152,432 

98,348,730 

3,278 

1877 

75,074,930 

22,308,690 

97,383,620 

3,246 

1878 

77,344,577 

30,689,989 

108,034,566 

3,601 

1879 

82,276,766 

45,277,355 

127,554,121 

4,251 

1880 

93,234,752 

64,617,581 

157,852,333 

5,262 

1881 

98,733,550 

76,277,210 

175,010,760 

5,834 

1882 

99,678,766 

85,098,274 

184,777,040 

6,159 

1883 

99,209,926 

100,999,717 

200,209,643 

6,674 

1884 

84,077,689 

103,628,904 

187,706,593 

6,257 

1885 

80,870,718 

111,357,351 

192,228,069 

6,408 

1886 

82,903,995 

137,748,854 

220,652,849 

7,355 

1887 

86,263,444 

158,219,042 

244,482,486 

8,149 

1888 

86,125,770 

151,174,756 

237,300,526 

7,910 

$1,311,114,877 

$1,111,473,578 

$2,422,588,455 

80,752 

“The  above  tabulated  statements,  as  I said  before,  were  submitted  to  a con- 
vention of  railroad  commissioners,  held  in  Washington  the  3d  and  4th  of  last 
March.  The  convention  was  presided  over  by  Thomas  M.  Cooley,  and  was 
composed  of  very  able  men,  gathered  from  all  parts  of  the  United  States;  and 
the  above  tabulated  statements  were  unanimously  indorsed  by  the  convention, 
and  are,  therefore,  the  very  best  authority  in  the  United  States  on  the  ques- 


CAMPBELL'S  LETTER . 


87 


tion  of  railway  earnings.  Now,  as  a number  of  very  prominent  Republicans 
of  the  Kansas  Senate,  in  the  last  legislative  session,  declared  that  the  railroads 
of  the  country  were  not  making  expenses,  in  the  face  of  the  foregoing  facts 
it  will  be  eminently  proper  for  those  gentlemen  to  arise  up  and  explain  why 
they  made  those  statements.  In  the  event  of  their  failing  to  do  so,  the  people 
of  Kansas  will  have  to  search  somewhere  behind  the  throne  for  the  prompting 
motive. 

45 It  is  plain  to  see  by  the  foregoing  facts  that  the  railroads  of  the  United 
States  are  sapping  the  life  of  the  nation  very  rapidly,  notwithstanding  what 
the  Republican  Senate  has  said.  The  next  question  is,  What  proportion  of 
those  fictitious  earnings  have  been  wrung  from  the  sunburned  farmers  of  the 
1 Sunflower  State?’  In  order  to  understand  just  what  proportion  we  pay,  we 
will  compare  the  freight  rates  paid  by  some  of  the  Western  States  with  the 
rates  prevailing  in  Kansas.  It  would  not  be  fair  to  take  the  rates  of  New 
England,  New  York,  or  even  Ohio,  as  their  conditions  are  different;  therefore 
we  will  take  the  two  agricultural  States  of  Illinois  and  Iowa.  Their  roads  have 
cost  more  than  the  roads  in  Kansas,  for  the  reason  that  there  were  more  cuts, 
grades,  and  more  bridging.  And,  as  a matter  of  course,  it  costs  more  to  keep 
their  roads  in  repair  than  the  roads  of  this  State.  The  facts  are,  there  is  no 
country  in  the  world  where  railroads  can  be  built  and  operated  so  cheaply  as  in 
Kansas.  I will  not  give  the  rates  on  all  the  different  classes,  as  it  would  re- 
quire too  much  space  and  labor,  but  will  compare  six  different  classes,  which 
will  clearly  show  the  difference  in  rates. 

“The  following  table  is  a comparison  of  the  freight  rates  in  the  States  of 
Iowa,  Kansas,  and  Illinois: 


Distance  in  miles 

STATES. 

IN  CENTS  PER  100  POUNDS. 

CATTLE. 

SOFT 

COAL. 

Less 
than  car 
loads. 

1 i 

Car  loads. 

s s 

5 

Si 

S §* 

O cs 

Merchan- 
dise— 1st 
class 

Fifth 
class 

Class  D. 

Wheat 

a 

s 

a. 

Ci 

Cb 

5S 

S' 

Cc 

a 

3 

a. 

S' 

< 

[Iowa 

14 

5 

3 

4 

10  50 

34 

10 

A 

Kansas 

15 

7 

4 

5 

10  00 

60 

1 

[Illinois 

15 

6 

3 

4 

11  00 

45 

1 

[Iowa 

16 

5 

4 

5 

12  60 

42 

20 

A 

Kansas 

20 

9 

5 

6 

12  00 

85 

1 

[Illinois 

18 

8 

4 

5 

14  00 

55 

i 

[Iowa.. 

17 

6 

4 

5 

13  50 

50 

30 

4 

Kansas 

24 

11 

• 6 

6 

14  00 

95 

i 

[ Illinois 

22 

9 1 

4 

5 

15  00 

65 

88 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Iowa 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Iowa 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Iowa 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Iowa...... 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Iowa 

Kansas. 

Illinois., 

Iowa 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Iowa 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Iowa 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Iowa 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Iowa 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Iowa..... 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Iowa 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 

Iowa 

Kansas. 

Illinois. 


COMPARISON  OF  FREIGHT  RATES  — Continued. 


STATES. 


SOFT 

IN  CENTS  PER  100  POUNDS. 

CATTLE. 

COAL. 

Less 

than  car 

Car  loads 

S3  S 

ft  ft. 

On 

loads. 

-s  © 

^ § 

ci  S3 

S3 

© a* 

g 

a 

?8 

OP j CD 

O H> 

sT 

p- 

: a 

i a 

Sl’jr 

S&  S' 

CO  ^ 

CO 

CO 

CD 

& 

: 3 
• a. 

: 3 
: ^ 

•“  1 s 

CO 

« 

rt* 

! 8 

: © 

. © 

: w i 

; a 

: s 

• 

: 61 

: ^ 

18 

6 

4 

5 

15  00 

58 

28 

13 

6 

7 

16  00 

1 10 

26 

10 

5 

6 

16  50 

75 

20 

7 

5 

6 

16  50 

66 

32 

15 

7 

8 

18  00 

1 15 

29 

11 

5 

6 

17  50 

85 

20 

7 

5 

6 

17  50 

74 

36 

17 

8 

8 

20  00 

1 25 

31 

12 

5 

7 

18  50 

89 

21 

7 

5 

7 

18  50 

82 

40 

19 

8 

8 

22  00 

1 35 

32 

12 

6 

7 

19  50 

93 

22 

7 

5 

7 

19  50 

88 

44 

22 

8 

9 

24  00 

1 40 

34 

13 

6 

8 

20  50 

96 

23 

8 

5 

7 

20  50 

94 

48 

25 

9 

10 

26  00 

1 55 

36 

14 

6 

8 

21  50 

98 

24 

8 

6 

8 

21  50 

1 00 

52 

27 

10 

10 

27  00 

1 56 

38 

15 

7 

8 

22  50 

1 00 

25 

8 

6 

8 

22  50 

1 03 

t 55 

29 

11 

11 

29  00 

1 60 

40 

15 

7 

9 

23  50 

1 02 

27 

9 

6 

8 

23  10 

1 06 

57 

31 

12 

11 

31  00 

1 80 

42 

16 

7 

9 

24  15 

1 04 

28 

10 

7 

8 

23  90 

1 09 

59 

33 

.12 

12 

33  00 

2 00 

43 

16 

7 

9 

25  40 

1 06 

30 

10 

7 

9 

24  70 

1 12 

61 

34 

12 

13 

35  00 

2 10 

44 

17 

8 

9 

26  20 

1 08 

32 

11 

7 

9 

25  50 

1 15 

63 

35 

13 

14 

36  00 

2 15 

45 

18 

8 

10 

27  00 

1 10 

33 

11 

8 

9 

26  30 

1 18 

65 

36 

14 

14 

37  00 

2 20 

46 

18 

8 

10 

27  55 

1 12 

CAMPBELL'S  LETTER, 


89 


COMPARISON  OF  FREIGHT  RATES— Concluded. 


Distance  in  miles... 

STATES. 

IN  CENTS  PER  100  POUNDS. 

CATTLE. 

SOFT 

COAL. 

Less 
than  car 
loads. 

Car  loads. 

In  dollars  and  cents 
per  car 

In  dollars  and  cents 
per  car 

Merchan- 
dise— 1st 
class 

Fifth 
class 

Class  D 

3 

tr 

a> 

S3 

(Iowa 

35 

12 

8 

10 

27  10 

1 21 

170 

67 

37 

14 

15 

38  00 

2 35 

(Illinois 

46 

18 

8 

10 

28  25 

1 14 

(Iowa 

36 

13 

8 

10 

27  90 

1 24 

180 

< Kansas 

69 

39 

15 

15 

39  00 

2 35 

(Illinois 

47 

18 

9 

11 

29  00 

1 16 

(Iowa 

38 

13 

9 

10 

28  70 

' 1 27 

190 

< Kansas 

71 

40 

15 

15 

40  00 

2 40 

(Illinois 

48 

19 

9 

11 

29  50 

1 18 

[Iowa 

40 

14 

9 

10 

29  50 

1 30 

200 

■<  Kansas 

73 

41 

16 

15 

41  00 

2 45 

(Illinois 

48 

19 

9 

11 

30  00 

1 20 

(Iowa 

43 

15 

10 

11 

31  30 

1 34 

220 

-<  Kansas 

75 

43 

17 

15 

42  00 

2 60 

(Illinois 

50 

20 

9 

11 

31  00 

1 24 

(Iowa 

46 

16 

10 

11 

33  10 

1 38 

240 

< Kansas 

77 

45 

18 

15 

43  00 

2 75 

(Illinois 

51 

20 

10 

12 

32  00 

1 28 

(Iowa 

49 

17 

11 

12 

34  90 

1 42 

260 

-<  Kansas 

79 

47 

19 

16 

44  00 

2 90 

1 Illinois 

52 

21 

10 

12 

33  00 

1 32 

(Iowa 

52 

18 

11 

12 

36  70 

1 46 

280 

-<  Kansas 

81 

49 

20 

16 

45  00 

3 05 

(Illinois 

54 

21 

10 

12 

34  00 

1 36 

(Iowa 

56 

20 

12 

12 

38  50 

1 50 

300 

-<  Kansas 

83 

51 

21 

16 

46  00 

3 25 

(Illinois 

55 

22 

11 

13 

35  00 

1 40 

(Iowa 

57 

21 

13 

14 

39  50 

1 54 

320 

■<  Kansas 

85 

53 

22 

17 

47  00 

3 45 

(Illinois 

56 

23 

11 

13 

36  00 

1 43 

(Iowa 

58 

22 

14 

14 

40  50 

1 58 

340 

-<  Kansas 

87 

55 

23 

17 

48  00 

3 70 

(Illinois 

57 

23 

11 

13 

37  00 

1 46 

(Iowa 

59' 

23 

15 

15 

41  50 

1 62 

360 

-<  Kansas 

92 

59 

25 

18 

49  00 

3 90 

(Illinois 

58 

23 

11 

14 

38  00 

1 49 

(Iowa 

60 

24 

16 

15 

42  50 

1 66 

380 

'<  Kansas 

1 00 

65 

28 

18 

50  00 

4 00 

(Illinois 

59 

24 

12 

14 

29  00 

1 52 

(Iowa 

61 

25 

17 

16 

43  50 

1 70 

400 

Kansas 

1 10 

70 

31 

19 

51  00 

4 10 

(Illinois 

60 

24 

12 

14 

40  00 

1 55 

90 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


“In  giving  the  foregoing  rates,  we  have  left  out  the  fractions  of  cents,  as  it 
would  save  the  printer  an  immense  amount  of  work,  while  the  above  is  near 
enough  for  all  practical  purposes.  The  rates  given  for  Iowa  and  Illinois  are 
for  class  A roads. 

“ The  foregoing  comparison  of  rates  is  taken  directly  from  the  rate  schedules 
in  force  in  the  respective  States.  Yours  truly, 

W.  M.  Campbell. 


STATE  PRINTING. 

It  is  charged  by  the  old  party  press  that  the  People’s  Party  failed  to  reform 
the  extravagance  and  wastefulness  in  the  matter  of  State  Printing.  Let  us 
see:  It  has  been  the  custom  under  the  rule  of  the  old  parties  for  each  State 
officer,  head  of  department,  board,  commission,  or  their  clerks,  to  make  requi- 
sitions on  the  State  Printer  direct  for  anything  they  thought  they  needed,  or 
might  need,  and  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Printer  to  furnish  it  — subject  to  the 
provisions  of  section  6675,  General  Statutes,  but  which  section  has  been  con- 
tinually and  persistently  violated  by  the  old  party  State  Printers  — winked  at 
and  condoned  by  the  old  party  Attorney  General,  Secretary  of  State,  and  Aud- 
itor, who  have  permitted  large  deficiencies  to  be  made  each  term,  amounting 
to  $183,000  for  the  past  four  fiscal  years. 

To  make  section  6675,  G.  S.,  operative  and  of  full  force,  the  People’s  Party 
legislators  attached  a “rider”  to  the  bill  making  an  appropriation  for  State 
printing  for  the  fiscal  years  1892-93,  in  which  they  create  a Board  of  Public 
Printing  through  which  all  requisitions  must  come,  and  a record  of  them 
kept,  with  absolute  powers  and  control  of  the  kind,  quantity  and  quality  of 
the  work  to  be  paid  for  out  of  the  fund  appropriated.  We  here  quote  the 
sections  creating  this  board,  defining  its  powers  and  duties,  from  pages  79,  80, 
of  the  Session  Laws  of  1891  — also  section  6675,  General  Statutes  1889  : 

Seo.  2.  All  printing  done  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  have  first  been 
submitted  to  and  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  State , who  is  hereby  made  the  sole 
authority  to  issue  requisitions  upon  the  State  Printer  for  printing  required  by 
any  officer  or  any  institution  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  subject  to  the  approval 
of  the  Attorney  General.  All  printing,  book-making  and  binding  required  by 
any  State  officer,  State  institution,  board,  or  commission,  shall  be  done  by  the 
State  Printer:  Provided , That  no  printing  shall  be  done  except  such  as  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  Attorney  General,  and  State  Treasurer, 
are  necessary  for  the  general  information:  Provided,  further,  A majority  of  said 
persons  may  decide  as  to  what  shall  be  printed.  The  binding  and  printing 
provided  for  under  this  section,  not  otherwise  specifically  provided  for,  shall 
be  construed  to  mean  plain  pamphlet  work  of  such  quality  and  style  as  shall 
conform  to  the  demands  of  sound  business  economy,  and  shall  be  done  ac- 
cording to  specifications  furnished  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  by  and  with  the  ad- 


STATE  PRINTING. 


91 


vice  and  consent  of  the  Attorney  General:  Provided , That  the  Secretary  of 
State  shall  not  consider  any  requisition  for  printing  unless  the  same  is  signed 
by  the  head  of  the  department,  board  or  commission  from  which  such  requi- 
sition shall  issue,  or  the  first  assistant  of  the  various  State  departments. 

Seo.  4.  That  in  all  cases  in  which  by  the  provisions  of  this  act  appropria- 
tions are  made  for  the  specific  purpose  named  or  stated,  the  officer  or  person 
having  charge  of  said  appropriation  shall  not  in  any  case,  by  contract,  act,  or 
proceeding,  obligate  the  State  at  any  time  to  pay  a larger  sum  than  herein  spe- 
cifically appropriated;  and  that  in  no  case  shall  the  amount  paid  exceed  the 
amount  provided  by  law. 

Sec.  6675,  G.  S.  1889,  page  2038:  That  any  officer  or  agent  of  the  State  who 
shall  be  empowered  to  expend  any  public  moneys,  or  to  direct  such  expendi- 
tures, is  hereby  prohibited  from  making  any  contract  for  the  erection  or  repair 
of  any  building,  or  for  any  other  purpose , whereby  the  expenditure  of  any 
greater  sum  of  money  shall  be  contemplated , agreed  to , or  required , than  is  ex- 
pressly authorized  by  law;  and  any  officer  or  agent  of  the  State  violating  this 
law  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  embezzlement  of  the  amount  in  excess  of  that 
expressly  authorized  by  law,  and,  upon  conviction,  shall  be  punished  by  con- 
finement and  hard  labor  not  exceeding  five  years,  or  in  the  county  jail  not  less 
than  six  months.  (Laws  1886,  ch.  103,  \ 1,  Feb.  27.) 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  COFFEYVILLE  DYNAMITE  INVESTIGATION. 

The  history  of  the  explosion  of  a box  of  explosive  material,  at  Coffeyville, 
Kansas,  October  18,  1888,  under  circumstances  that  indicated  the  deepest 
villainy  behind  it,  is  familiar  to  every  citizen  of  Kansas,  and  many  thousands 
beyond  the  borders  of  this  State.  That  the  State  Senate  refused  in  1889  to 
investigate,  or  rather,  Senator  Lockard  had  then  refused  to  present  to  the 
Senate  a petition  asking  for  investigation,  is  also  well  known.  It  is  also  well 
known  that  the  county  attorney  of  Cowley  county  refused  to  act  upon  a com- 
plaint sworn  out  against  parties,  a part  of  whom  were  residents  of  Cowley 
county,  giving  as  his  reason  “a  want  of  jurisdiction.”  It  was  claimed  in  the 
complaint,  sworn  out  before  Justice  of  the  Peace  Salem  Fbuts,  of  Arkansas 
City,  Kansas,  that  a conspiracy  had  been  entered  into  between  E.  P.  Greer, 
of  Cowley  county,  Bion  S.  Hutchins  and  C.  A.  Henrie,  of  Shawnee  county,  and 
H.  M.  Upham,  of  Montgomery  county.  Surely  the  courts  of  either  of  these 
counties  would  have  had  jurisdiction,  and  especially  Cowley  county,  as  it  is 
the  home  of  not  only  a conspirator,  but  also  of  the  intended  victims  of  the  con- 
spiracy. The  accidental  explosion  of  the  infernal  machine  in  Montgomery 
could  not  make  that  the  only  county  having  jurisdiction.  Yet  such  decisions 
were  made  by  Republican  officers,  to  prevent  investigation  till  the  statute  of 
limitation  should  save  their  friends  from  prosecution. 

Ceaselessly,  by  pen  and  tongue,  did  the  intended  victims  try  to  induce  pros- 
ecution, either  directly  or  indirectly,  by  challenging  a suit  for  libel  if  the 
charges  made  were  not  true.  All  efforts  failed  till  the  election  of  1890  secured 
a majority  of  Populists  in  the  Kansas  House  of  Representatives.  During 
the  first  week  of  the  legislative  session  resolutions  demanding  an  investiga- 
tion were  drawn  up  by  C.  Vincent,  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  Representative 
J.  L.  Andrews,  a member  from  Cowley  county.  Inasmuch  as  the  senatorial 
contest  was  yet  undecided,  and  the  temper  of  the  House  yet  unsettled,  it  was 
deemed  prudent  to  withhold  these  resolutions  until  after  the  senatorial  elec- 
tion, which  was  done. 


(92) 


COFFEYVILLE  DYNAMITE  INVESTIGATION. 


93 


The  next  week  Mr.  Andrews  introduced  the  following  concurrent  resolu- 
tion No.  23;  House  Jour.  pp.  275  and  317: 

Whereas,  On  the  18th  day  of  October,  1888,  a package  of  dynamite  or  other  deadly  explo- 
sives, was  deposited  in  the  office  of  the  Pacific  Express  Company,  at  Coffeyville,  Kansas,  and 
directed  to  be  sent  to  Winfield,  Kansas;  and 

Whereas,  The  dynamite  did  explode  while  in  the  custody  of  H.  M.  Upham,  and  danger- 
ously, and  well-nigh  fatally,  wounded  two  innocent  women  ; and 

Whereas,  It  is  charged  that  a person  is  now  in  the  employ  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  who 
it  is  charged  was  implicated  in  a conspiracy  against  the  lives  and  property  of  certain  citizens 
of  the  State  of  Kansas ; and 

Whereas,  It  has  been  charged  the  Kepublican  State  Central  Committee  of  Kansas  were 
instigators  of  a conspiracy  to  destroy  the  property,  reputation,  and  possibly  the  lives,  of  some 
of  our  people  for  political  effect:  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives , the  Senate  concurring  therein , That  a committee  of 
five  on  the  part  of  the  House  and  three  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  be  appointed,  to  make  a full 
investigation  of  all  the  facts  pertaining  to  this  outrage,  with  a view  that  the  guilty  may  be 
punished,  the  innocent  vindicated,  and  the  lives  of  our  people  protected. 

This  was  messaged  to  the  Senate  on  the  same  day  (Senate  Jour,  p.250),  and 
called  up  for  action  on  the  following  Monday  (Senate  Jour.  p.  272).  Upon 
motion  of  Mr.  Gillett,  of  Kingman,  the  following  was  inserted  as  a studied  in- 
sult to  the  House : 

“Whereas,  Parties  making  such  charges  have  withheld  from  the  public  all  evidence  of  their 
authority  to  make  the  same,  and  have  used  the  information  they  claim  to  have  for  political  ef- 
fect, thereby  making  evidence  of  crime  a basis  of  political  agitation,  instead  of  attempting  to 
bring  criminals  to  justice.” 

This  amendment,  with  others,  was  sent  to  the  House  (House  Jour.  pp.  365, 
366).  Mr.  Elder  moved  to  non-concur  in  the  above  “Whereas,”  but  before  a 
vote  was  taken,  Mr.  Reeder  moved  the  adoption  of  the  following  substitute, 
which  motion  carried,  and  the  substitute  was  adopted  : 

“Whereas,  It  has  been  charged  in  certain  prints,  and  on  the  floor  of  this  House,  that  the 
aforesaid  alleged  crime  has  not  been  investigated  in  the  courts  of  the  State,  by  reason  of  the 
refusal  of  certain  officers  to  perform  their  sworn  duties.” 

This  action  in  turn  was  messaged  back  to  the  Senate  the  following  day, 
when  the  Senate  receded  from  its  amendment  (292),  accepted  the  action  of  the 
House,  and  appointed  the  Senate  members  of  the  committee,  C.  H.  Kimball, 
J.  G.  Mohler,  and  Ed.  Carroll.  Mr.  Kimball  secured  the  appointment  of  his 
private  stenographer  as  the  official  stenographer,  assumed  control  of  the 
preparation  of  the  report  for  the  printer  and  the  proof-reading  of  the  same, 
and  now,  when  the'official  volume  comes  from  the  State  Printer,  (C.  C.  Baker,) 
on  page  2 appears  the  Senate  “Whereas”  non-concurred  in  by  the  House , and 
receded  from  by  the  Senate.  (Correction  of  typographical  error;  see  p.  159.) 

Senator  Kimball  is  directly  responsible  for  thus  falsifying  the  record  in  an 
attempt  to  cast  odium  upon  political  opponents. 

Here  we  insert  a letter  of  inquiry  to  Senator  Kimball,  offering  him  a chance 


94 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


to  explain  this  matter,  but  up  to  date  of  going  to  press,  September  15th,  no 
reply  has  been  received: 

OFFICE  OF  AMERICAN  NONCONFORMIST. 

H.  & L.  VINCENT,  economic  quarterly. 

PUBLISHERS.  COWLEY  COUNTY  TELEGRAM. 

ALLIANCE  CIRCULATING  LIBRARY. 

Winfield,  Kansas,  August  13, 1891. 

Hon.  C.  H.  Kimball , Parsons , Kansas: 

My  Dear  Sir — Deferring  to  House  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  23,  providing  for  joint  com- 
mittee of  which  you  were  chairman  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  you  will  notice  by  reference  to 
page  272  of  Senate  Journal  that  your  body  amended  said  resolution  by  the  adoption  of  a reso- 
lution seriously  reflecting  upon  certain  persons. 

By  reference  to  House  Journal,  page  366,  you  will  notice  that  Mr.  Reeder  proposed  a substi- 
tute for  this  Senate  amendment  which  was  adopted. 

Referring  now  to  Senate  Journal,  page  292,  you  will  notice  this  resolution  messaged  back  to 
the  Senate,  and  immediately  following  this  the  action  of  the  Senate  in  receding  from  its  amend- 
ment, under  motion  of  Senator  Osborn;  this  in  turn  followed  by  the  appointment  of  the  Sen- 
ate members  of  the  committee. 

Inasmuch  as  you  had  control  of  the  printing  of  the  published  volume  containing  report  of 
said  committee,  what  explanation  have  you  to  offer  for  the  fact  that  the  resolutions,  as  pub- 
lished therein,  contain  this  Senate  resolution  which  was  receded  from  (Senate  Journal  page 
292)?  An  early  reply  will  greatly  oblige,  Yours  sincerely,  C.  Vincent. 

It  may  be  as  well  to  notice,  in  this  connection,  something  of  the  methods 
used  to  secure  a seat  for  Mr.  Kimball  in  the  Senate,  to  which  seat  he  is  not 
rightfully  entitled. 

In  the  fall  of  1888,  George  Campbell  and  C.  H.  Kimball  were  opposing  can- 
didates, on  the  Union  Labor  and  Republican  tickets  respectively.  In  the  elec- 
tion, Mr.  Campbell  received  2,793  votes,  and  Mr.  Kimball  2,790.  In  Iuka 
precinct  were  cast  46  votes  for  Mr.  Campbell,  but  the  clerk,  in  footing  up  the 
tallies,  wrote  41;  this  footing  being  counted  by  the  board  made  Mr.  Camp- 
bell’s vote  appear  only  2,788.  When,  a few  days  later,  this  error  was  discov- 
ered, the  chairman  of  the  board,  a Republican,  refused  to  reconvene  the  board 
and  correct  the  error,  “because  Mr.  Kimball  was  not  willing  he  should;”  and 
the  matter  stood  that  way  till  winter,  when  a contest  was  made.  Mr.  Kimball 
stood  on  his  “dignity,  and  the  face  of  the  returns,”  refusing  even  to  appeal 
to  the  ballot-box  for  a recount  of  the  votes,  as  any  honest  man  naturally 
would.  This  of  itself  showed  that  he  did  not  himself  believe  the  plea  he  set 
up,  that  “five  extra  tallies  might  have  been  forged.”  If  forged  on  one  book, 
the  other  book  would  have  convicted  the  forger,  but  he  never  called  in  the 
other  to  support  his  theory  of  the  case,  nor  dared  to  appeal  to  a recount.  For 
four  years  he  has  held  a seat  belonging  to  another  man,  misrepresenting  a 
district  that  defeated  him  at  the  ballot-box  only  to  have  its  choice  counted  out 
by  the  returning  board.  And  this  in  Kansas! 

In  the  contest  before  the  Elections  Committee  (T.  B.  Murdock,  chairman), 


COFFEYVILLE  DYNAMITE  INVESTIGATION. 


95 


the  committee  say:  “The  only  question  involved  in  this  contest  is  the  num- 
ber of  votes  received  in  said  precinct  ( Iuka)  by  the  said  George  Campbell. 
. . . Your  committee  find  that  the  claim  of  George  Campbell,  that  he  re- 

ceived in  said  Iuka  precinct  46  votes  for  State  Senator,  instead  of  41  votes, 
has  not  been  established  by  any  evidence  satisfactory  to  the  committee;  Sen. 
Jour.  1889,  p.  237.  The  brief  of  Mr.  Campbell  in  support  of  his  case  contains 
conclusive  evidence  in  court  decisions,  and  even  if  this  were  lacking,  the  Sen- 
ate committee  had  the  power  to  call  for  the  ballots  and  order  a recount  of 
them.  But  no;  they  well  knew  such  fairness  would  unseat  their  partisan  and 
“annoy”  the  immaculate  Republican  Senate  by  the  presence  of  a Union 
Labor  legislator,  which  “annoyance”  they  were  unwilling  to  endure. 

The  following  letter  tells  the  whole  story: 

Oswego,  Kas.,  July  3d,  1891. 

Mr.  C.  Vincent , Winfield , Kansas — Dear  Sir:  Your  letter  in  regard  to  the  Kimball  and 
Campbell  matter  received  a few  days  ago.  I have  examined  the  matter  carefully,  having  closely 
examined  all  the  poll-books,  and  find  there  were  2,793  votes  polled  for  Mr.  Campbell  and  2,790 
for  Mr.  Kimball  for  State  Senator  in  1888.  The  board  only  counted  2,788  for  Mr.  Campbell. 
The  precinct  of  Iuka,  in  Neosho  township,  polled  46  for  Mr.  Campbell,  while  the  clerks  only  car- 
ried out  in  figures  41  votes  for  Mr.  Campbell  instead  of  46.  Mr.  Goodwin,  the  Union  Labor 
commissioner,  and  myself,  were  not  satisfied  with  the  count,  and  did  not  want  to  adjourn  till 
we  looked  the  poll-books  over  again;  but  Mr. Brooks,  chairman  of  the  board,  and  Mr.  Jones 
said  they  would  adjourn,  telling  me  to  look  the  books  over  and  if  I found  a mistake  they  would 
come  back.  I immediately  put  the  books  in  the  safe,  under  lock,  so  no  person  could  get  them. 
Some  days  later,  ten  or  twelve  men  about  the  town  and  court-house,  some  of  whom  were  Re- 
publicans, and  Mr.  Campbell,  desired  to  look  the  books  over  and  see  what  the  vote  was.  I told 
Mr.  Campbell  that  Commissioner  Jones  was  in  town  and  to  see  him,  and  if  he  was  willing,  he 
and  the  other  men  could  have  the  books,  provided  there  were  some  Republicans  there  to  be 
satisfied  that  the  count  was  fair.  Mr.  Campbell  saw  Commissioner  Jones,  who  told  him  to  go 
ahead  and  look  the  books  over,  “and  if  you  find  a mistake,  let  me  know.”  A dozen  of  us  were 
present,  carefully  examined  the  books,  and  found  Campbell  had  2,793  votes,  giving  him  3 major- 
ity after  giving  Mr.  Kimball  74  votes  which  he  had  stamped  on  Democratic  tickets  and  peddled 
out  to  unsuspecting  Democrats.  Mr.  Sharp,  the  Democratic  candidate  for  Senator,  had  with- 
drawn a few  weeks  before,  and  Mr.  Kimball  tried  to  fill  the  vacancy  by  stamping  his  name  in  red 
ink  on  the  Democratic  tickets,  and  thus  deceived  some  Democrats,  as  they  have  since  stated.  Mr. 
Brooks,  the  chairman  of  the  board,  was  notified  of  the  error  in  the  count  and  requested  to  re- 
convene the  board  and  correct  it.  He  said  he  would  see  Mr.  Kimball,  and,  if  he  was  willing , he 
would  correct  the  error.  He  saw  Mr.  Kimball,  and  he  said  that  Mr.  Kimball  was  not  willing  to 
have  the  board  meet,  and  therefore  he  would  not  reconvene  the  board,  and  thus  Mr.  Campbell 
was  counted  out.  Last  summer  (1890)  Mr.  Wm.  Cook,  sheriff  of  this  county,  was  in  the  county 
clerk’s  office.  They  got  into  a controversy  over  the  count-out,  when  the  sheriff  bantered  them 
to  get  the  ballots  of  Iuka  precinct  and  count  them  to  satisfy  themselves.  W.  W.  Cook,  deputy 
county  clerk,  said  all  right,  if  the  county  clerk,  Mr.  Tilton,  was  willing.  Mr.  Tilton  said  all 
right,  as  the  ballots  had  now  been  kept  longer  than  the  time  required  by  law.  Sheriff  Cook 
said  it  was  not  fair  to, have  two  Republicans  and  only  one  Labor  man  at  the  count,  and  with 
their  permission  he  would  call  in  W.  H.  Porter,  United  Labor  county  treasurer.  They  replied 
that  they  had  no  objection,  so  Mr.  Porter  was  called  in  and  ballots  were  got,  W.  W.  Cook,  dep- 
uty county  clerk,  calling  the  vote,  the  county  clerk  and  county  treasurer  keeping  tally, 


96 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


while  the  sheriff  looked  over  the  ballots  as  the  deputy  county  clerk  called,  and  there  were 
found  to  be  46  votes  for  Mr.  Campbell,  instead  of  41  votes  as  counted  by  the  board. 

Thus  it  is  apparent  the  Republican  board  were  determined  on  the  count-out.  Enclosed  I 
send  you  a brief  of  the  case,  as  passed  on  by  the  Senate  committee,  which  will  give  details  in 
full.  Very  respectfully, 

W.  J.  Millikin,  ex- County  Clerk. 

Ed.  Carroll  (Dem.),  from  Leavenworth,  was  on  the  Elections  Committee, 
and  voted  to  adopt  the  report  of  the  committee.  ( Sen.  Jour.  1889,  p.  237.) 

But  this  is  a digression,  and  would  be  out  of  place  here,  were  it  not  to  show 
the  conscienceless  character  of  the  man  who  would  retain  a senatorial  seat 
when  he  knew  the  people  rejected  him.  His  real  character  here  stands  out 
plainly,  and  will  counteract  whatever  reputation  for  fairness  he  may  have 
gained  with  casual  acquaintances.  And  he  is  the  author  of  the  Republican 
report.  This  fact  alone  would  discredit  it  among  fair-minded  people,  but,  in 
order  that  all  may  know  the  extent  to  which  unbridled  Republican  partisan- 
ship can  go,  we  will  dissect  this  report  in  the  following  pages.  There  are  so 
many  glaring,  “garbled  extracts,”  and  distorted  statements,  that  if  an  attempt 
were  made  to  notice  all  of  them  together  some  would  escape  notice,  (and  it  is 
not  claimed  that  all  have  been  discovered  and  exposed  here,  but  attention  is 
called  to  enough  to  show  the  trend  of  Republican  “statesmanship.”)  Accord- 
ingly, the  editorial  remarks  are  interspersed  throughout  the  reports,  as  occa- 
sion seemed  to  require. 

With  this  brief  introduction,  the  reports  of  the  committee  are  here  presented, 
(copied  from  the  official  document,)  asking  the  public  to  keep  clearly  in  mind 
the  four  theories,  one  of  which  must  account  for  the  explosion.  These  are: 

First.  Spontaneous  combustion  of  chemicals  in  the  laboratory  of  Mr.  Up- 
ham. 

Second.  Malicious  intent  upon  the  part  of  Mr. Upham,  and  a desire  to  destroy 
his  family.  X 

Third.  Malicious  intent  upon  the  part  of  the  Yidettes,  and  an  attempt  to 
punish  Greer  for  his  publication  of  their  ritual,  and  to  prevent  further  simi- 
lar publications. 

Fourth.  Malicious  intent  on  the  part  of  Republican  managers  — Greer, 
Hutchins,  Henrie,  et  al. — to  effect  the  financial  and  political  downfall  of  the 
Vincent  brothers,  and  through  them  of  the  Union-Labor  party,  by  “proving” 
them  to  be  dangerous  persons,  the  climax  to  be  reached  when  dynamite  was 
to  be  found  in  possession  of  the  a^ove  firm;  which  dynamite  exploding  pre- 
maturely at  Coffeyville  thwarted  the  plot,  and  nearly  murdered  two  innocent 
women. 

One  of  these  theories  must  account  for  the  explosion,  and  inasmuch  as  posi- 
tive evidence  is  produced  that  the  first  two  are  untenable,  and  no  evidence  at 
all  in  support  of  the  third,  it  necessarily  follows  that  most  of  the  time  of  the 


REPORT  OF  WHOLE  COMMITTEE . 


97 


committee  was  occupied  in  examining  the  evidence  for  or  against  the  fourth, 
or  last  theory. 

There  are  four  reports  — one  signed  by  the  full  committee,  one  by  the  Re- 
publican members,  one  by  the  Populist  members,  and  one  by  the  Democratic 
member  (Mr.  Carroll)  — and  they  are  presented  here  in  the  above  order,  with 
comments. 


REPORT  OE  WHORE  COMMITTEE  SO  FAR  AS  IT  WAS  ABLE  TO  AGREE. 

“Topeka,  Kansas,  May  8, 1891. 

“Hon.  Lyman  U.  Humphrey,  Governor  of  the  State  of  Kansas  — Sir:  The 
joint  committee  of  the  Legislature  of  1891,  appointed  under  House  concur- 
rent resolution  No.  23,  to  investigate  the  facts  connected  with  the  explosion 
which  took  place  at  Coffeyville,  in  this  State,  October  18,  1888,  was  by  a sub- 
sequent concurrent  resolution  authorized  to  continue  its  investigation  after 
the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature,  and  directed  to  make  its  report  — to  be 
printed  with  the  evidence  — to  you.  In  accordance  therewith,  the  commit- 
tee submits  herewith  the  record  of  its  proceedings  and  the  evidence  taken 
during  such  investigation,  together  with  its  report,  in  so  far  as  the  com- 
mittee has  been  able  to  agree;  and  to  which  are  appended  statements  em- 
bodying the  views  of  the  members  of  the  committee  upon  those  questions 
concerning  which  the  committee  has  been  unable  to  agree. 

“As  this  investigation  is  somewhat  political  in  its  character,  it  may  be 
proper  to  say  that  the  committee,  as  originally  appointed  on  the  part  of  the 
House,  consisted  of  Representatives  J.  L.  Andrews,  Ezra  Carey,  O.  M.  Rice, 
C.  C.  Vandeventer,  and  C.  N.  Bishoff,  the  first  four  being  members  of  the 
People’s  Party,  and  the  last  named  a Republican.  Mr.  Andrews  resigned  as 
a member  of  the  committee,  February  23d,  and  was  succeeded  by  Representa- 
tive M.  Senn.  On  the  25th  of  the  same  month  Mr.  Vandeventer  resigned,  and 
was  succeeded  by  Representative  Geo.  W.  Crumley;  and  on  the  2d  of  March 
Mr.  Rice  resigned,  and  was  succeeded  by  Representative  T.  M.  Templeton; 
the  members  appointed  being  of  the  same  political  party  as  those  whom  they 
succeeded.  [All  these  resignations  were  made  on  account  of  sickness. — Ed.] 
The  members  of  the  committee  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  were  Senators  C. 
H.  Kimball,  J.  G.  Mohler,  and  Ed.  Carroll,  the  first  two  being  Republicans, 
and  the  last  named  a Democrat.  Mr.  Andrews,  who  had  been  elected  chair- 
man of  the  committee,  was,  upon  his  resignation,  succeeded  in  that  position 
by  Mr.  Carey.  Mr.  Andrews  died  at  Topeka  within  a few  days  after  his  resig- 
nation. We  pause  to  pay  a tribute  of  respect  to  his  memory,  and  to  the  ability 
and  fairness  which  characterized  his  action  while  a member  and  chairman  of 
the  committee;  and  to  tender  our  sympathy  to  his  relatives  and  friends  in 
their  bereavement. 

“The  committee  at  its  first  meeting,  February  13, 1891,  concluded  to  ask  the 
Legislature  to  enact  a law  requiring  witnesses  summoned  before  legislative 
investigating  committees  to  answer  all  questions  put  to  them  touching  the 
subject  matter  of  the  investigation,  even  though  their  answers  might  tend  to 
criminate  them,  protecting  them  from  the  effect  of  any  such  incriminating 
answers,  and  providing  that  the  willful  giving  of  false  testimony  before  any 
such  committee  should  be  punished  as  perjury;  and  the  committee  decided, 


98 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


if  practicable,  to  await  the  enactment  of  such  a law  before  taking  any  testi- 
mony. A bill  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  a member  of  the  committee,  cover- 
ing the  ground  indicated,  was  passed  by  that  body  on  the  16th  day  of  February, 
and  was  afterwards  passed  by  the  House,  and  took  effect  February  23,  1891. 
On  the  next  day  thereafter,  the  committee  commenced  he’aring  the  testimony. 

“It  seemed  to  the  committee  not  only  fair  to  all  parties,  but  as  likely  to  re- 
sult in  a more  thorough  investigation  of  the  matter,  to  allow  the  parties  who 
had  made  the  charges  referred  to  in  the  resolution  under  which  the  commit- 
tee was  appointed,  and  who  $ere  still  insisting  on  the  truth  of  the  charges,  to 
take  the  affirmative  of  establishing  them,  in  so  far  as  they  were  able  to  pre- 
sent any  evidence  tending  to  support  them;  and  to  allow  the  parties  against 
whom  the  charges  were  made  to  take  the  negative  side  of  the  question,  and  to 
offer  such  evidence  as  they  might  have  bearing  upon  the  subject  matter.  For 
convenience,  these  two  sides  have  been  generally  designated  in  the  proceed- 
ings and  evidence  as  the  prosecution  and  the  defense,  respectively. 

“For  the  purpose  of  ' still  further  promoting  and  facilitating  a thorough 
investigation  into  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  the  subject- 
matter,  the  parties  interested  were  authorized  by  the  committee  to  be  repre- 
sented by  attorneys  — Messrs.  H.  G.  Webb  and  B.  S.  Henderson  being 
employed  to  represent  the  prosecution  and  Messrs.  F.  B.  Dawes  and  Charles 
Curtis  to  represent  the  defense.  The  action  of  the  committee  in  this  respect 
was  seemingly  approved  by  the  Legislature  in  making  an  appropriation  to 
remunerate  the  attorneys  for  their  services.  The  attorneys  so  employed  ex- 
amined and  cross-examined  the  witnesses,  members  of  the  committee,  how- 
ever, extending  or  continuing  such  examination  at  pleasure. 

“The  committee  has  earnestly  endeavored  to  carry  out  and  accomplish  the 
purpose  indicated  by  the  resolution-under  which  it  was  appointed.  It  has 
secured  the  attendance  of  every  person  known  or  supposed  to  have  any 
knowledge  that  would  throw  any  light  upon  the  subject-matter.  It  has 
secured  the  presence  of  witnesses  from  Ohio,  Michigan  and  Colorado  by  ad- 
vancing traveling  expenses,  etc.,  and  from  various  parts  of  the  State  by  sub- 
pena.  No  person  whose  attendance  as  a witness  was  desired,  even  though 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  compulsory  process,  has  failed  or  refused  to  respond 
to  a request  for  his  attendance.  These  witnesses,  more  than  seventy-five  in 
number,  have  been  carefully  and  searchingly  examined  and  cross-examined  in 
the  presence  of  and  by  members  of  the  committee.  Much  of  the  testimony 
offered  seemed  to  have  little  or  no  bearing  upon  the  subject  of  the  investiga- 
tion, but  it  has  been  received  by  the  committee  in  the  hope  that  it  would 
afford  some  clue  by  which  other  testimony  might  be  secured  that  would  be 
relevant  and  material.  The  fact  that  on  the  18th  day  of  October,  1888,  at 
about  half-past  4 o’clock  in  the  afternoon,  an  explosion  occurred  at  the  house 
of  Mr.  H.  M.  Upham  (the  Pacific  express  agent  at  Coffeyville),  whereby  his 
wife  and  adopted  daughter,  Mabel,  were  severely  injured  and  a portion  of  his 
house  shattered  and  blown  to  pieces;  the  fact  that  Mr.  Upham,  as  he  stated 
at  the  time,  attributed  the  explosion  to  the  contents  of  a box  which  he  said 
had  been  left  with  him  that  day  by  a man  who  gave  the  name  of  P.  Jason,  to 
be  shipped  to  L.  or  J.  Louden  at  Winfield,  Kansas;  and  many  other  details 
connected  therewith,  were  undisputed  and  well  known  to  the  public  about  the 
time  the  unfortunate  occurrence  happened.  In  this  connection,  a brief 
resume  of  the  testimony  bearing  directly  upon  the  explosion  itself  and  the 
effects  thereof  may  not  be  out  of  place. 


REPORT  OF  WHOLE  COMMITTEE. 


99 


“That  part  of  Mr.  Upham’s  testimony  was  in  substance  as  follows:  He  tes- 
tified that  about  11  o’clock  in  the  forenoon  of  the  day  of  the  explosion,  October 
18,  1888,  a man,  whom  he  describes,  brought  a pine  box,  about  eight  or  nine 
inches  square,  into  the  express  office;  and,  after  making  some  inquiry  about 
when  the  trains  would  leave,  and  being  informed  that  the  first  train  that  car- 
ried express  left  at  4:30  the  next  morning,  said  he  wanted  to  send  the  box  by 
express  to  J.  Louden,  at  Winfield,  Kansas,  paid  the  charges,  25  cents,  and  said 
he  wanted' no  receipt  for  the  package.  That  when  he,  Mr.  Upham,  first  asked 
this  man  his  name  he  said  it  was  no  matter;  and  when  again  requested  to  give 
his  name,  gave  the  name  of  P.  Jason.  Said  the  box  contained  glass,  medicine 
in  bottles,  and  he  wanted  it  handled  very  carefully  — not  thrown  on  the  dray, 
or  left  at  the  depot;  and  being  assured  that  it  would  be  handled  carefully, 
turned  and  went  out  as  Mr.  Upham  was  fastening  a tag  on  the  box.  Mr.  Up- 
ham described  the  man  who  shipped  the  box  as  being  about  his  height  — five 
feet  six  inches;  weighing  140  or  150  pounds;  about  forty  years  old;  dark  com- 
plexioned;  small,  black  eyes,  which  he  frequently  opened  and  closed  when  talk- 
ing with  him;  full  dark  beard;  mark  of  having  worn  glasses  on  the  bridge  of 
his  nose;  dressed  in  dark  or  black  cloth  clothing,  worn  shiny  — not  working 
clothes;  soft  hat,  and  shoes.  Mr.  Upham  says  that  he  entered  the  box  on  the 
forwarding  book’,  made  out  a way-bill,  left  it  on  his  desk,  put  the  box  in  his 
wagon,  drove  home,  arrived  there  a little  before  noon,  put  the  box  in  a small, 
dark  room,  which  he  had  partitioned  off  from  the  laundry  or  summer-kitchen, 
and  which  he,  being  an  amateur  photographer,  used  in  connection  with  his 
work  as  such.  That  about  1 o’clock  he  went  back  to  his  office,  returned  to  his 
residence  again  at  2:30  or  3 o’clock,  and  when  Mabel  returned  from  school 
asked  her  and  Mrs.  Upham  to  go  with  him  and  see  Mabel’s  picture  developed. 
That  the  three  went  into  the  dark  room;  he  closed  the  door,  put  the  plate  in 
the  solution,  went  out  to  get  a pail  of  water,  and  just  as  he,  returning  with  the 
water,  had  entered  the  summer  kitchen  the  explosion  occurred.  (28,  24,  25.) 
The  room,  he  says,  was  immediately  filled  with  a sulphurous  smoke,  but  there 
was  no  fire. 

“Beyond  the  injury  to  Mrs.  Upham  and  Mabel,  the  effect  of  the  explosion 
was  to  demolish  the  dark  room;  shatter  and  force  off  some  of  the  boards  com- 
posing the  outer  walls  of  the  kitchen;  to  break  a hole  through  the  north  door 
of  the  kitchen,  about  seven  feet  away  from  the  dark  room,  and  through  the 
south  door,  which  was  about  five  feet  from  the  dark  room;  raise  the  roof  so 
that  it  stood  open  at  the  comb;  break  a hole  through  the  kitchen  floor  about 
three  feet  in  diameter,  and  through  the  ceiling  of  the  cellar;  breaking  a large 
pine  box  which  was  in  the  cellar  directly  under  the  dark  room;  and  breaking  a, 
hole  in  the  cement  floor  of  the  cellar. 

“Mrs.  Upham’s  testimony  is  corroborative  of  her  husband’s,  as  to  the  box 
being  brought  home  and  placed  in  the  dark  room,  the  invitation  to  go  into 
the  dark  room  to  see  the  plate  developed,  and  the  fact  that  Mr.  Upham  was 
out  after  water  when  the  explosion  occurred.  She  testifies  that  she  did  not 
see  the  box  after  it  was  taken  into  the  dark  room,  but  that  she  saw  it  taken  in 
there,  and  that  she  heard  a sissing  noise  for  a second  or  a moment  just  before 
the  explosion;  and  beyond  that  she  knows  nothing  as  to  the  cause  of  the  ex- 
plosion, except  what  she  was  told  after  she  Jiad  partially  recovered. 

“Mabel  Upham’s  testimony  is  corroborative  of  Mr.  Upham’s  as  to  the  invi- 
tation to  go  to  the  dark  room  to  see  the  plate  developed,  and  the  fact  that  he 
was  after  water  when  the  explosion  occurred.  She  remembers  hearing  the 


100 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


\ 


report  of  the  explosion,  but  nothing  further;  says  she  did  not  hear  the  siss- 
ing  noise  to  which  Mrs.  Upham  testified,  and  did  not  s4e  the  box  — never 
heard  of  it,  in  fact,  until  after  she  had  so  far  recovered  that  persons  talked  to 
her  about  it.  She  says  it  was  not  her  picture,  but  an  outdoor  picture,  which 
Mr.  Upham  was  developing.  (Record,  17-22.) 

“Dr.  Wood,  the  physician  who  attended  Mrs.  Upham  and  Mabel,  testified 
that  after  Mabel  had  partially  recovered  from  the  shock,  about  eight  or  ten 
days  after  the  explosion,  she  told  him,  in  response  to  his  questioning,  that 
she  and  her  mamma  were  standing  very  close  together  in  the  dark  room,  and 
her  mamma  hit  a little  box  that  was  sitting  on  the  floor  with  her  toe,  when 
there  was  a sissing  noise  and  it  exploded  (record,  569);  but  Mabel  herself 
testified  that  she  never  saw  or  heard  of  the  box  until  after  she  had  practically 
recovered,  when  she  was  told  about  it,  and  that  she  heard  no  noise -preceding 
the  explosion.  ( Record,  20,  21.) 

“The  wounds  received  by  Mrs.  Upham,  caused  by  the  explosion,  were  numer- 
ous and  very  severe.  The  flesh  was  nearly  all  blown  or  torn  from  her  left  foot 
and  ankle,  the  cords  even  being  torn  and  cut  away,  and  the  muscles  of  the  left 
arm  and  leg  torn  and  lacerated,  with  cuts  and  punctured  wounds  on  other 
parts  of  her  person.  The  injuries  received  by  Mabel  were  also  very  severe. 
The  bones  of  her  right  ankle  were  broken,  and  a part  of  one  bone  was  blown 
away,  with  numerous  wounds  where  the  flesh  was  torn,  lacerated,  and  cut. 

“Dr.  Wood  testified  that  in  those  wounds  upon  Mrs.  Upham  and  Mabel,  he 
found  particles  of  bran,  chopped  oats,  wood  fiber,  shreds  of  clothing,  small 
pieces  of  glass,  etc. 

“As  to  just  what  it  was  that  exploded,  or  caused  this  explosion,  whether  it 
was  accidental  or  intentional,  innocent  or  criminal,  and  if  the  latter,  who  was 
the  criminal,  and  what  was  the  motive,  were  questions  about  which  there  have 
been  many  opinions. 

“One  theory  has  been  that  the  explosion  resulted  either  from  the  careless 
or  improper  use  of  chemicals  or  explosives  used  in  photography  — Mr.  Upham 
being  an  amateur  photographer  — or  was  the  culmination  of  a deliberate  plan 
on  his  part  to  destroy  his  wife  and  possess  himself  of  her  property;  and  that 
the  story  about  the  box  being  left  for  shipment  to  Winfield  was  an  invention 
of  Mr.  Upham’s,  to  shield  himself  from  the  blame  or  suspicion  that  would  rest 
upon  him  in  case  the  truth  was  known  or  suspected. 

“Another  theory  has  been  that  it  was  the  work  of  members  of  a secret, 
oath-bound  organization,  known  as  the  National  Order  of  Yidettes.  That  the 
dynamite  or  explosive,  whatever  it  was,  was  intended  by  members  of  this 
order,  for  use  in  blowing  up  the  office  of  the  Winfield  Courier , for  the  purpose 
of  preventing  a further  expose  that  was  about  to  be  published,  or  in  revenge 
for  a partial  expose  that  had  been  published,  of  the  secrets  of  this  order;  and 
that  the  explosion  of  the  box  at  Coffeyville  was  premature  and  accidental. 

“Still  another  theory  has  had  its  adherents,  who  openly  charged  that  the 
explosion  was  a part  of  a plan,  or  the  result  of  a conspiracy  to  which  the 
Republican  State  Central  Committee,  through  its  officers,  Henry  Booth,  chair- 
man, and  Bion  S.  Hutchins,  secretary,  and  other  prominent  Republicans  in 
the  State,  were  parties.  That  in  order  to  give  additional  emphasis,  or  dra- 
matic effect  to  the  expose  of  the  Yidettes,  which  was  about  to  be  published 
simultaneously  by  many  of  the  Republican  papers  of  the  State,  it  had  been 
planned  to  have  an  explosion  at  Winfield,  whereby  the  office  of  the  Courier, 
the  paper  first  publishing  the  expose,  was  to  be  destroyed;  that  a part  of  the 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


101 


dynamite  was  to  be  secreted  in  or  about  the  office  of  the  Nonconformist , a 
paper  published  by  the  Vincent  brothers,  to  be  found  there  after  the  explo- 
sion, so  as  to  convict  them,  and  other  members  of  the  Videttes,  of  being  dyna- 
miters and  anarchists  as  had  been  charged.  That  the  dynamite  was  shipped 
for  that  purpose,  the  explosion  at  Coffeyville  being  premature  and  uninten- 
tional. That  Ed.  P.  Greer,  the  editor  of  the  Winfield  Courier , and  C.  A.  Henrie 
were  parties  to  this  conspiracy,  the  latter  being  the  man  who  delivered  the 
box  to  Mr.  Upham  at  Coffeyville,  and  who  was  rewarded  for  his  part  in  the 
plot,  and  for  his  silence,  by  an  appointment  as  clerk  in  the  Labor  Bureau. 

“As  to  what  are  the  true  answers  to  the  questions  suggested,  or  the  true 
theory  upon  which  to  account  for  this  explosion,  the  committee  is  unable  to 
agree,  and,  as  before  stated,  the  several  opinions  entertained  will  be  hereto 
appended.  C.  H.  Kimball, 

J.  G.  Mohleb, 

Edward  Carroll, 

Members  of  the  Committee  on  the  part  of  the  Senate. 

Ezra  Carey, 

M.  Senn, 

G.  W.  Crumley, 

C.  N.  Bishoef, 

T.  M.  Templeton,' 

Members  of  the  Committee  on  the  part  of  the  House.” 


REPORT  OF  SENATORS  KIMBALL  AND  MOHLER,  AND  REPRESENTATIVE  BISHOFF,  RE- 
PUBLICAN MEMBERS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE. 

• 

[ In  the  analysis  of  the  reports,  where  figures  are  unchallenged,  it  is  con- 
ceded that  the  evidence  warrants  the  conclusions  drawn,  and  where  we  differ, 
we  quote  the  evidence  in  support  of  our  position. — Ed.] 

“Topeka,  Kansas,  May  9,  1891. 

“To  Hon.  Lyman  U.  Humphrey,  Governor  of  the  State  of  Kansas  — Sir: 
The  undersigned,  members  of  the  joint  committee  appointed  to  investigate 
what  is  known  as  the  Coffeyville  explosion,  in  addition  to  those  matters  con- 
tained in  the  report  subscribed  by  the  entire  committee,  submit  the  following 
report,  containing  — 

“First:  Some  special  findings  as  to  the  charges  made  or  recited  in  the  res- 
olutions under  which  the  committee  was  appointed. 

“ Second : Some  general  observations,  for  the  purpose  of  grouping  together 
certain  facts,  and  preserving  in  history,  what  is  now  generally  known  and 
understood,  that  this  investigation,  instead  of  being  instituted  for  the  laud- 
able purpose  of  exposing  and  punishing  a crime,  was  urged  and  advocated  to 
gratify  feelings  of  personal  hatred,  and  a desire  for  revenge;  and  was  taken 
up  and  foisted  upon  the  people  of  this  State  by  the  Alliance  party,  at  an  ex- 
pense of  $12,000  or  more,  for  political  buncombe  merely — for  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  endeavoring  to  smirch  the  Republican  party,  and  gain  some  political 
advantage. 

“Third:  As  the  resolutions  charge  that  a person  now  in  the  employ  of  the 
State  was  implicated  in  the  conspiracy  which  resulted  in  the  explosion;  and 

—6 


102 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


as  it  was  and  is  a matter  of  public  knowledge  that  Mr.  C.  A.  Henrie,  a clerk 
in  the  Burea.u  of  Labor,  was  the  employe  against  whom  this  charge  was 
directed;  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  four  members  of  this  committee 
belonging  to  the  party  responsible  for  this  investigation  have,  in  secret  ses- 
sion to  which  no  other  member  of  the  committee  was  admitted,  prepared  a 
report,  which  they  refused  to  exhibit  to  the  committee,  and  which  they  have 
announced  their  intention  of  secreting  until  our  report  is  submitted  (p.  606), 
but  in  which  report  it  is  understood  that  they  have  found  that  the  charges 
made  or  recited  in  the  resolution  referred  to  are  true,  and  have  endeavored 
to  sustain  such  findings  by  inferences,  deductions,  and  extracts  from  the  tes- 
timony; and  in  view  of  the  further  fact,  that  these  members  of  the  commit- 
tee, or  some  of  them,  have  from  the  beginning  of  this  investigation  indicated 
that  they  believed  that  Mr.  Henrie  was  the  man  who  delivered  to  Mr.  Upham 
the  box  which  exploded;  and  that  the  only  way  that  the  Republican  party 
could  be  connected  with  the  crime  was  through  Mr.  Henrie  — in  view  of  these 
facts,  we  have  thought  best  to  append  a third  subdivision,  which  will  be  de- 
voted to  some  further  findings  and  conclusions,  not  only  as  to  the  whereabouts 
of  Mr.  Henrie  on  the  18th  day  of  October,  1888,  but  as  to  other  relevant  mat- 
ters with  reference  to  the  testimony  supporting  them.  With  this  preliminary 
statement,  we  submit  the  following: 

“I. — Special  Findings. — 1st.  If  it  is  true  that  a man  known  or  unknown  to 
Mr.  H.  M Upham  brought  a box  to  the  express  office  at  Coffey ville  and  left  it 
with  him  to  be  shipped  to  Winfield,  as  he  says,  and  that  it  was  this  box,  or  the 
contents  thereof,  which  exploded,  then  we  find,  after  a careful  consideration 
of  the  testimony,  that  there  is  an  entire  absence  of  evidence  from  which  we 
are  able  to  locate  or  identify  the  person  who  left  the  box  at  the  express  office, 
or,  if  the  purpose  was  criminal,  from  which  we  are  able  to  say  what  crime  was 
intended,  the  motive  thereof,  or  the  purpose  to  be  accomplished. 

“2d.  We  find  further,  that  the  explosion  was  not  the  result  of  any  conspiracy 
instigated  by  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee,  or  in  which  any  mem- 
ber of  that  party  or  any  employe  of  the  State  was  implicated,  as  charged  in 
the  resolutions.  The  proof  is  clear  and  convincing  that  the  use  or  explosion 
of  dynamite  was  no  part  or  plan  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee 
for  conducting  its  campaign;  that  it  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  ex- 
plosion at  Coffey  ville,  and  was  in  no  wise  responsible  therefor;  and  that 
Henry  Booth,  Bion  S.  Hutchins,  E.  P.  Greer,  C.  A.  Henrie,  and  George  W. 
Poorman  were  not  in  any  way  connected  with  the  explosion,  or  accessory 
thereto. 

“3d.  We  further  find  that  there  is  an  entire  absence  of  testimony  showing 
or  tending  to  show  that  the  failure  to  investigate  this  alleged  crime  in  the 
courts  has  been  caused  by  the  neglect  or  refusal  of  any  public  officer  to  per- 
form his  sworn  duties  in  reference  to  the  matter,  as  charged  in  the  resolu- 
tions. 

“4th.  The  findings  already  made  show  that  the  charge  that  you,  having 
been  advised  of  Mr.  Henrie’s  connection  with  the  explosion,  and  as  a reward 
therefor,  secured  for  him  the  position  which*  he  now  holds  as  clerk  in  the 
Bureau  of  Labor,  cannot  be  true;  and  we  find  that  your  action  in  recommend- 
ing or  assenting  to  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Henrie  was  uninfluenced  by  any 
such  consideration. 

“II. — Some  Genebal  Obsebvations. — (The  figures  in  parentheses  will  refer 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT . 


103 


to  the  pages  of  the  record,  where  the  testimony  or  proceedings  may  be  found 
supporting  the  statements  made.) 

“That  the  student  of  the  future  may  understand,  as  the  people  of  this  day 
and  generation  understand,  that  feelings  of  personal  ill-will  and  hatred,  a de- 
sire for  revenge  on  the  part  of  the  members  of  a secret,  oath-bound  political 
organization  and  a hope  to  make  political  capital,  were  the  motives  for  urging 
and  instituting  this  investigation;  that  the  facts  in  reference  to  the'  secret 
caucus  report  of  the  four  Alliance  members  of  the  committee  may  be  recorded 
and  preserved,  so  that  it  may  be  understood  and  known  for  what  it  is — not 
as  the  honest,  deliberate  judgment  of  unprejudiced  men,  but  simply  as  the 
final  act  in  a drama,  the  cast  and  lines  of  which  were  laid  down  and  well  un- 
derstood before  the  play  commenced  — a brief  outline  is  here  given  of  the 
situation,  past  and  present,  so  far  as  it  is  relevant  to  the  subject-matter  of 
this  investigation. 

“The  political  campaign  of  1888  was  one  of  great  public  interest  and  im- 
portance. Besides  the  Republican  and  Democratic,  there  were  the  Union 
Labor,  the  United  Labor,  and  other  presidential  or  national  tickets  in  the  field; 
and  while  it  seemed  certain  that  Kansas  would  be  carried  by  the  Republican 
national  ticket,  the  contest  on  the  State,  Congressional  and  local  tickets  in 
this  State  was  spirited  and  vigorous.  The  Union  Labor  party,  since  merged 
into  the  Alliance  or  People’s  Party,  was  an  especially  important  factor  in  the 
fight,  and  it  was  believed  that  the  local  ticket  supported  by  that  party  would 
be  successful  in  many  parts  of  the  State;  and  members  of  that  party  were  not 
wanting  who  professed  to  believe  that  their  ticket  would  carry  the  State.  At 
this  time  Henry  and  Leo  Vincent  were,  and  for  a year  or  more  had  been,  pub- 
lishing a weekly  paper  at  Winfield,  known  as  the  American  Nonconformist , 
politically  supporting  the  Union  Labor  party  and  its  candidates.  The  utter- 
ances of  this  paper,  while  in  form  denying  it,  were  such  as  to  convince  intel- 
ligent and  patriotic  citizens  that  its  editors,  the  Vincents,  were  in  fact 
anarchists,  and  were  in  full  sympathy  with  the  red-flag  anarchists  of  the  Chi- 
cago stripe.  They  denounced  the  execution  of  the  Haymarket  anarchists  as 
‘ judicial  murder.’  (431,433.)  In  the  issue  of  their  paper  of  September  22, 
1887,  appears  an  editorial  under  the  heading  of  ‘Must  have  their  Blood,’ 
which  was  in  evidence,  and  from  which  the  following  is  quoted: 

It  may  be  of  no  avail  to  enter  our  protest  at  this  late  hour  against  this  judicial  murder, 
but  we  can  at  least  show  a contempt  for  the  cowardly  cringing  of  professed  labor  reformers  at 
the  feet  of  monopoly  in  their  mad  cry  for  blood.  The  monopolists  are  howling  for  blood; 
nothing  else  can  satisfy.  The  people  are  becoming  desperate,  and  an  example  must  be  made 
of  those  who  have  the  nerve  to  protest  against  this  hell-born  system  of  legal  robbery;  and  the 
protestors  — the  people  — given  to  understand  that  they  must  calmly  submit  to  be  robbed,  or  be 
hanged  if  they  resist.  That  is  what  it  amounts  to. 

“ ‘The  monopolists  (the  modern  slaveholders)  are  just  that  near-sighted  as  to  fancy  that  the 
hanging  of  seven  men  is  about  to  settle  the  question  in  favor  of  their  supremacy,  as  they 
thought  the  hanging  of  that  one  man  would  settle  the  former  agitation. 

“ ‘Another  thing:  How  happens  the  date  for  the  execution  to  fall  on  the  day  that  the  State 
militia  is  to  be  in  the  city?  Is  there  anything  suggestive  about  that?  Would  this  have  been 
tl^e  case,  had  not  the  ‘ powers  that  be’  known  that  the  desperate  legal  murder  they  were  order- 
ing would  call  forth  an  outburst  of  popular  wrath  ? And  are  they  such  fools  as  to  think  that 
two  or  three  companies  of  State  dudes  can  quell  an  insurrection  of  the  magnitude  such  a crime 
will  call  out?  . 

“ ‘ To  our  mind,  if  Chicago  wants  to  see  bloodshed  as  she  never  saw  it  before,  they  have  but 
to  spring  the  trap  to  launch  those  seven  men  into  eternity ; and  if  Judge  Gary  hopes  to  escape,  it 
would  be  no  indiscretion  on  his  part  to  join  his  co-workers  and  brethren  in  crime,  the  Chicago 
boodlers,  and  take  a vacation  in  Canada.’  ” 

[ Turn  now  to  p.  593  of  the  record  and  finish  the  above  article  from  which 


104 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


J udge  ( ? ) Kimball  extracted  a few  sentences,  which,  taken  alone,  might  be  mis- 
construed. One  sentence  Mr.  Kimball  took  good  care  not  to  quote  is  this: 
“The  Nonconformist  stands  for  law,  but  it  stands  for  human  rights  first. 
Take  the  heel  of  oppression  from  the  neck  of  labor,  and  you  have  no  use  for 
nine-tenths  of  the  ‘enactments’  that  disgrace  this  boasted  land  of  the  free.” 
— Ed.]  * 

“The  sentiments  of  the  editors  of  this  paper  were  so  pronounced  and  well 
understood,  that  long  before  the  Coffeyville  explosion  it  was  a common  thing 
for  the  people  to  refer  to  them  as  “anarchists”  or  “dynamiters.”  (130,  132, 
431.) 

“During  this  same  period,  Mr.  Ed.  P.  Greer  was,  and  before  that  time  had 
been,  publishing  a daily  evening  paper  at  Winfield,  Republican  in  politics, 
known  as  the  Courier.  Because  of  the  sentiments  expressed  by  the  Vincents 
in  their  paper,  Mr.  Greer  had  denounced  them  as  anarchists,  and  as  men  dan- 
gerous to  the  welfare  of  the  community.  As  a consequence  whereof,  the  Vin- 
cents were  not  particularly  friendly  towards  him;  and  a certain  expose  and 
the  comments  thereon  in  the  Courier , which  will  be  referred  to  more  fully 
hereafter,  caused  the  relations  between  the  Vincents  and  their  associates  and 
Mr.  Greer  to  become  so  strained  that  there  were  those  of  the  latter’s  friends 
who  feared  for  his  personal  safety.  (326,  327.) 

“At  the  State  convention  of  the  Union  Labor  party,  held  at  Wichita  in  that 
year,  it  was  noticed  by  members  of  that  party  that  there  was  some  secret 
organization  working  within  the  party,  which  absolutely  controlled  its  move- 
ments and  dictated  its  action,  but  to  the  deliberations  of  which  none  but  the 
initiated  were  admitted.  (Testimony  of  Henrie,  177;  of  Connor,  400,  401.) 
Rumors  became  rife  of  the  existence  of  this  organization  in  Cowley  county, 
and  that  it  was  treasonable,  revolutionary,  and  bound  together  with  oaths, 
whereby  its  members  forswore  their  allegiance  to  the  laws, of  their  country  in 
their  obligation,  under  penalty  of  death,  to  obey  the  orders  and  preserve  the 
secrets  of  the  organization.  This  matter  coming  to  the  ears  of  prominent 
Republicans  in  that  county,  an  effort  was  made  to  secure  evidence  of  the  ex- 
istence and  character  of  the  order.  One  George  W.  Poorman,  a printer  who 
had  been  in  the  employ  of  the  Vincents,  and  who  knew  that  the  secret  woi^k  of 
this  organization  had  been  printed  in  their  office  (333),  was  employed  and  paid 
to  secure  a copy  of  it,  and  was  successful  in  doing  so.  (329,  et  seq.) 

“On  the  4th  of  October,  1888,  the  contents  of  this  book,  which  contained  the 
constitution,  ritual,  secret  work,  oath,  etc.,  of  fhe  National  Order  of  Videttes, 
were  published  in  the  Courier , together  with  charges  that  the  society  was 
secret,  oath-bound,  treasonable,  and  revolutionary  in  its  character;  that  it  was 
organized  within  the  Union  Labor  party;  that  one  of  its  objects  was  to  con- 
trol the  action  of  that  party  politically;  that  the  Vincents  were  members  of 
the  organization,  and  that  the  secret  work  of  the  order  was  printed  at  their 
office.  (74,  76.)  This  has  been  spoken  of  by  many  of  the  witnesses  in  their 
testimony  as  the  first  expose  of  the  National  Order  of  Videttes.  There  were 
many  who  feared  the  vengeance  of  the  Videttes  would  be  visited  upon  Mr. 
Poorman  and  Ed.  Greer,  or  both,  for  the  exposure  of  their  order.  Mr.  Poor- 
man  believed,  and  was  advised,  that  it  would  be  safer  to  go  away,  which  he  did 
at  once.  (97,  330,  333,  340.) 

“The  Vincents,  through  their  paper,  in  a public  debate,  and  in  conversation 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT . 


105 


with  members  of  their  party  who  were  not  members  of  the  order,  denied  that 
there  was  any  such  order  in  existence,  and  denounced  the  statements  made 
in  the  Courier  as  campaign  lies  (74,  97,  120),  and  being  believed  by  many 
members  of  their  party,  were  thus  enabled  to  materially  diminish  the  effect 
that  this  expose  would  otherwise  have  had.” 

[What  purpose  Mr.  Kimball  can  have  in  making  imaginary  quotations, 
or  citing  those  that  do  not  exist,  is  more  than  we  can  understand.  Page  74  of 
the  record  contains  nothing  that  refers  even  to  a pretended  denial.  On  page 
97  is  only  the  statement  of  Greer  that  ‘the  Vincents  denied  the  existence  of 
the  Order  of  Videttes.’  .Referring  to  the  same  thing  (p.  120)  in  Greer’s  ex- 
amination occurs  the  following: 

Q.  In  answer  to  Mr.  Dawes,  you  said  after  the  publication  of  the  ritual, 
which  occurred  on  the  4th  of  October,  that  the  Vincents  denied  the  existence 
of  the  order  of  the  Videttes?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  then,  was  that  denied  by  them  orally  or  was  it  denied  by  some  arti- 
cle published  in  their  paper?  A.  Well,  the  most  positive  or  specific  denial  of 
that  occurred  at  a public  meeting  in  WTinfield,  in  which  Prof.  Vincent  and 
Col.  Henderson  were  discussing  the  issues  of  the  day. 

The  bare  statement  of  Greer  is  taken  as  proof  in  the  face  of  a positive  de- 
nial, which  Mr.  Kimball  conveniently  forgets  (?)  to  mention.  C.  Vincent  was 
on  the  witness  stand  — p.  277. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  where  you  were,  Mr.  Vincent,  upon  the  6th  and  8th 
days  of  October,  1888?  A.  I do. 

Q.  Just  state,  if  you  please.  A.  In  Winfield. 

Q.  Reference  has  been  made  to  a joint  discussion  between  you  and  Mr. 
Henderson;  state  whether  that  discussion  occurred  upon  the  evenings  of  these 
days.  A.  It  occurred  on  the  evenings  of  the  6th  and  8th. 

Q.  Were  you  then  in  anywise  connected  or  associated  with  an  organiza- 
tion denominated  the  National  Order  of  Videttes?  A.  I was. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  by  you  with  reference  to  the  organization?  A. 
Ye?,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  then  deny  that  you  had  any  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  an 
order  known  as  Videttes?  A.  I did  not. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  with  reference  to  it?  A.  I said  I did  not  have  any 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  any  secret  treasonable  organization  in  the 
State  of  Kansas. 

With  this  evidence  staring  him  in  the  face,  this  man,  chairman  on  the  part 
of  the  Senate,  masquerading  as  Senator,  in  the  place  belonging  to  another 
man,  Mr.  Kimball,  coolly  assumes  that  Mr.  Greer  told  the  truth,  and  pursues 
his  argument  as  serenely  as  if  he  were  honest  in  what  he  wrote. — Ed.] 

“Mr.  Greer  at  once  set  about  getting  additional  evidence  of  the  existence 


106 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


of  the  order.  Learning  that  the  officers  of  the  Republican  State  Central 
Committee  had  other  important  information  bearing  upon  the  case,  he  soon 
after  went  to  Topeka,  and  in  conjunction  with  Mr.  Bion  S.  Hutchins  and  Mr. 
C.  A.  Henrie,  assisted  in  preparing  and  putting  into  shape  the  final  and  con- 
clusive expose  of  the  existence  and  purposes  of  this  order.  (95.)  This  expose 
was  published  in  the  Courier  on  the  evening  of  October  18th,  and  in  the 
Topeka  Capital  and  other  prominent  Republican  papers  in  and  out  of  the 
State,  by  previous  arrangements,  on  the  19th.  (95,  522,  548.)” 

[The  Senator’s  citations  are  correct  this  time,  and  he  might  have  added 
that  the  entire  space  of  pages  179  to  199  was  occupied  in  showing  conclusively 
that  the  publication  of  October  18  and  19  was  a cunningly  arranged  tissue  of 
lies,  containing  enough  of  truth  to  give  it  currency  among  the  excited  popu- 
lace, whose  passions  were  to  be  still  further  aroused  by  the  inflammatory  char- 
acter of  the  publications. — Ed.] 

“The  explosion  at  Coffey ville  happened  on  the  18th,  the  same  day  that  the 
complete  expose  was  published  in  the  Courier.  As  it  was  reported  that  the  box 
of  dynamite  was  billed  to  Winfield,  there  was  much  excitement  there;  and  the 
two  topics,  the  expose  and  the  explosion,  were  the  talk  of  the  town.  Many 
persons  arrived  at  a conclusion,  which  perhaps  was  only  natural  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, that  the  Yidettes,  who  had  heretofore  been  dubbed  the  dyna- 
miters, were  in  fact  responsible  for  the  explosion;  and  that  the  dynamite  was 
shipped  to  Winfield  by  some  member  of  this  organization,  to  be  used  either 
in  wreaking  vengeance  upon  those  who  had  exposed  their  secrets,  or  to  pre- 
vent the  second  or  more  complete  exposure  that  was  published  on  that  day. 

“In  this  connection,  it  should  be  noticed  that  there  was  a combination  at 
that  time  between  the  Union  Labor  party  and  the  Democrats,  on  the  local 
ticket  in  Cowley  county,  and  that  the  Winfield  Telegram , a Democratic  paper 
published  there,  and  the  Nonconformist , were  both  supporting  the  same  local 
ticket,  the  editors  of  the  two  papers  being  on  intimate  terms  and  in  consulta- 
tion daily. 

“As  a kind  of  offset  to  the  public  talk  and  charges  that  the  Yidettes  and 
Yincents  were  responsible  for  the  explosion,  Mr.  J.  W.  Henthorn,  local  editor 
of  the  Telegram  and  correspondent  of  several  other  Democratic  papers,  con- 
ceived the  idea  that  it  would  be  a good  political  scheme  to  charge  the  ex- 
plosion at  Coffeyville  upon  the  Republicans,  as  a part  of  their  plan  to  bolster 
up  or  give  effect  to  the  expose.  The  matter  was  talked  over  with  the  other 
editors  of  the  Telegram,  and  with  the  Yincents,  and  the  plan  was  approved. 
(409.)” 

[Correct  again  — in  part.  Now  for  the  facts.  Mr.  Henthorn  continued  to 
edit  the  Telegram  for  a short  time  after  it  was  purchased  by  the  “ Independent 
Newspaper  Union ” — H.  & L.  Yincent,  managers.  Sometime  since  he  was 
discharged,  for  cause,  although  the  public  attention  was  never  called  to  the 
matter.  He  then  secured  work  from  Ed.  Greer,  and  in  order  to  “hold  his 
job,”  he  prostitutes  what  little  manhood  he  had  left,  and  goes  upon  the  stand 
to  swear  he  lied  in  1888.  Note  a few  choice  selections : 

By  Judge  Webb  (p.  412):  Q.  Are  you  in  the  habit  of  circulating  rumors 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


107 


detrimental  to  the  character  and  reputation  of  men  throughout  the  State,  or 
at  different  places,  for  the  purpose  of  publicity,  without  any  regard  to  their 
truthfulness?  A.  Not  except  in  a campaign. 

Q.  Well,  are  you  then?  A.  Well,  I have  done  it. 

Q.  Do  you  want  yourself  understood  as  a common  political  liar  ? A.  No  — 
not  quite. 

Q.  You  have  since  that  time  been  in  the  employ  of  the  Vincents?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  You  are  now  in  the  employ  of  Ed.  Greer?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  at  work  for  him?  A.  Almost  eleven  months. 

By  Mr.  Senn  ( p.  413)  : Q.  You  draw  a line  between  making  a statement 
for  political  purposes  and  any  other  statement?  A.  We  have  to. 

Q.  Why  do  you  have  to?  A.  To  keep  even  with  the  other  fellows. 

Q.  You  felt  as  though  you  would  be  justified  in  making  such  a statement, 
implying  as  much  as  it  did,  without  knowing  the  facts  in  the  case?  A.  Yes, 
sir;  I did.  I was  working  on  a Democratic  paper. 

Now  Mr.  Kimball  comes  to  the  rescue  of  their  liar  as  he  flounders  in  distress, 
sweating  blood  under  the  castigating  queries  of  attorneys  and  committee,  and 
shows  again  that  his  own  moral  status  is  as  low  as  Henthorn’s  (p.  414):' 

By  Senator  Kimball:  Q.  As  you  understand  it,  Mr.  Henthorn,  the  way 
political  campaigns  are  conducted  nowadays,  it  has  come  to  be  a common 
practice  for  the  organs  of  one  political  party  to  distort  the  truth,  and  even 
to  make  statements  that  are  not  true,  for  the  purpose  of  downing  the  other 
party  in  the  campaign,  has  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  because  the  editor  of  a party  newspaper  or  an  employe  upon  such 
paper  resorts  to  these  means  during  a campaign,  you  do  not  think  he  thereby 
forfeits  his  right  to  be  believed  when  he  testifies  in  court,  under  oath?  A.  I 
most  assuredly  do  not.] 

But  to  resume  the  report: 

“And  so  it  came  to  pass  that  on  the  next  day  after  the  explosion,  and 
without  a single  fact  to  support  the  statement,  special  dispatches  were  sent 
out  to  the  principal  Democratic  papers  of  the  West,  charging  in  effect  that 
it  was  a part  of  the  Republican  plan  to  give  effect  to  the  Vidette  expose 
to  deposit  the  dynamite  at  Coffeyville,  to  be  sent  to  Winfield  and  there  se- 
creted, to  be  found  in  the  possession  of  members  of  that  organization,  and 
thus  be  able  to  prove  that  they  were  in  fact  dynamiters  as  well  as  anarchists; 
and  from  that  time  until  after  the  election  the  Democratic  press  in  and  out 
of  the  State  teemed  with  so-called  dispatches,  editorials  and  clippings,  in  which 
the  responsibility  for  this  affair  was  charged  upon  the  Republican  party.  The 
Vincents,  as  would  be  expected,  approved  of  the  plan,  and  their  paper  was  not 
behind  in  the  matter,  there  being  this  difference;  however,  that  after  the  cam- 
paign was  over  the  decent  Democratic  papers  generally  allowed  the  matter  to 
drop.  Not  so,  however,  with  the  Vincents.  It  was  the  only  good  chance  they 
had  to  get  back  at  Mr.  Greer  for  the  punishment  they  had  received  at  his 
hands,  and  they  made  the  most  of  it.  The  exposure  had  broken  the  power 
of  the  order  of  Videttes  and  had  much  to  do  with  the  defeat  of  the 
Union  Labor  ticket  in  many  localities  in  the  State,  and  they  and  some  other 
members  of  the  order  were  bound  to  have  satisaction.  The  charges  were 


108 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


kept  up  in  the  Nonconformist;  and,  by  means  of  ready-prints  furnished 
by  that  office,  republished  in  other  Union  Labor  papers  in  the  State. 
Gradually  becoming  more  bold,  they  charged  in  their  paper  in  May,  1889* 
that  E.  P.  Greer,  C.  A.  Henrie,  Governor  Humphrey,  Bion  S.  Hutchins  and 
Henry  Booth  were  the  direct  agents  of  the  Coffey ville  explosion;  and  this 
was  followed  in  the  same  year  by  the  publication  of  a so-called  “History  of 
the  Coffeyville  Dynamite  Outrage,”  which  has  been  frequently  referred  to  by 
counsel  and  the  witnesses  in  this  investigation  as  the  “Red  Book.”  It  is 
a compilation  of  various  newspaper  articles  upon  one  side  of  the  subject. 
This  book  has  been  heard  from  in  various  portions  of  the  State,  and  seems 
to  have  had  a wide  circulation.  From  it  Mrs.  Lease,  and  numerous  other 
Alliance  speakers  during  the  last  campaign,  seem  to  have  taken  their  text  or 
drawn  their  inspiration.  With  the  way  prepared  as  we  have  seen;  with  the 
Alliance  — formerly  Union  Labor  party  — in  control  of  the  House,  with  a 
chance  to  put  up  a committee,  a majority  of  which  would  be  prejudiced 
against  the  Republican  party  in  this  and  other  matters,  it  was  easy  for  the 
Vincents,  who  were  on  hand  early  in  the  session,  to  secure  the  passage  in 
the  House  of  the  resolutions  under  which  the  committee  was  appointed.  The 
Senate,  being  Republican,  could  have  refused  to  concur  in  the  resolutions; 
but  a seeming  unwillingness  to  join  in  the  investigation  would  have  been 
construed  by  many  as  an  indication  that  the  charges  referred  to  were  true; 
and  so  the  resolutions  were  amended  and  passed,  and  the  committee  was 
appointed.” 

[See  p.  93  of  this  volume,  for  the  amendments  referred  to  and  the  for- 
gery of  Senator  Kimball.  His  inuendoes  carry  their  own  antidote,  and  his 
splenetic  rhetoric  would  be  more  in  place  in  regulation  Republican  stump 
speech  than  in  an  official  document.  — Ed.] 

“The  political  predilections  of  the  members  of  the  committee  have  been 
referred  to  in  another  place.  Of  the  eight  members  of  the  House  who  have 
been  appointed,  all  were  members  of  the  Alliance  party  but  one.  No  Demo- 
cratic member  of  the  House  was  appointed.  Of  three  members  appointed 
from  the  Senate,  the  only  Democratic  member  of  that  body  was  selected  as 
one.  While  the  theories  which  have  been  advanced  to  account  for  this  ex- 
plosion have  been  numerous,  the  resolutions  ignore  all  except  those  which 
reflect  upon  the  Republican  party  or  some  official  or  employ^  for  whom  it  is 
responsible.  .Outside  of  and  beyond  the  feelings  of  personal  ill-will  and  mal- 
ice which  lie  behind  the  matter,  and  the  hope  and  purpose  of  smirching  the 
Republican  party  and  making  political  capital,  there  was  no  more  reason 
why  the  Legislature  of  this  State  should,  at  an  expense  of  twelve  or  fifteen 
thousand  dollars,  investigate  the  explosion  at  Coffeyville,  even  if  it  was  crimi- 
nal, than  that  it  should  investigate  any  other  of  the  numerous  crimes  which 
have  been  committed  in  this  State,  the  perpetrators  of  which  are  as  yet  un- 
discovered and  unpunished.  Whether  these  are  sufficient  and  proper  rea- 
sons and  motives,  we  leave  to  the  people  of  the  State  to  judge. 

“The  motives  and  purposes  of  the  persons  who  worked  up  this  investiga- 
tion have  already  been  indicated,  and  are  apparent.  We  have  shown  how 
their  pertinacity  and  determination  to  accomplish  their  aims,  coupled  with 
the  political  prejudices  that  controlled  one  branch  of  the  Legislature,  resulted 
in  bringing  the  great  power  of  the  State,  through  its  Legislature,  to  bear,  in 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


109 


the  hope  of  finding  some  evidence  tending  to  prove  charges  which  the  evi- 
dence shows  were  absolute  inventions,  gotten  up  as  a good  political  scheme  to 
down  the  Republican  party.  And  it  should  also  be  noted  that  the  evidence  of 
Mr.  Henthorn  as  to  the  origin  of  these  charges  (409)  is  absolutely  uncontra- 
dicted by  any  testimony  in  the  case.” 

[Except  his  own  proclamation  of  his  lying  proclivities  — which  render  it 
unnecessary  to  cumber  the  record  with  further  evidence  — his  own  admission, 
and  the  necessity  to  “hold  his  job”  on  the  pay-roll  of  Ed.  Greer,  nullify 
whatever  of  value  might  have  attached  to  his  “evidence.” — Ed.] 

“The  Vincents  were  present  from  the  first  to  the  last  meeting  of  the  com- 
mittee; they  selected  and  hired  the  attorneys  who  conducted  the  Alliance  side 
of  the  investigation,  and  were  afterwards  paid  by  the  State.” 

[Correct,  and  Bion  Hutchins  selected  the  attorneys  who  defended  the  cause 
of  the  Republican  party  and  their  anarchist  protege — C.  A.  Henrie,  which 
attorneys  were  also  paid  by  the  State  an  equal  sum  with  the  others. — Ed.] 

“They  named  the  witnesses  whom  they  desired,  and  they  were  all  brought 
before  the  committee,  and  if  they  and  their  “mic’saders”  have  not  succeeded 
in  downing  those  who  accomplished  their  undoing,  it  is  certainly  not  their 
fault. 

“Another  matter  indicating  the  motives,  the  animus  behind  this  investi- 
gation, and  the  report  which  will  be  made  by  the  four  Alliance  members  of 
this  committee,  should  not  be  overlooked.  It  was  plainly  evident  after  the 
close  of  the  testimony,  indeed  it  was  ill  concealed  before,  that  these  members 
of  the  committee  intended,  in  so  far  as  in  their  power,  to  throw  the  responsi- 
bility for  this  explosion  upon  the  Republican  party,  as  charged  by  the  reso- 
lutions and  the  Vincents. 

“In  this  connection  it  should  be  remembered  that  this  committee  is  a pub- 
lic tribunal  with  high  and  important  functions,  and  it  was  properly  directed, 
by  a Senate  amendment  to  the  resolutions,  to  hold  its  sessions  with  open  doors; 
that  its  report,  sustaining  or  destroying  the  character  and  good  name  of  this 
one  or  that  one,  is  not  only  printed  and  distributed  to  the  public,  but  goes 
into  the  public  archives,  to  make  a part  of  the  official  history  of  this  State 
forever.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  proper  performance  of  official  duty 
would  seem  to  require  that  any  findings  made  by  a portion  of  the  committee, 
which  are  to  have  a place  in  the  public  report,  should  be  presented  to  and 
considered  by  the  committee;  and  a fair  opportunity  given  to  show,  if  pos- 
sible, that  the  conclusions  were  erroneous  and  baseless.  Especially  would  this 
seem  to  be  the  only  proper  course  where  individuals  were  to  be  inculpated. 
Their  names,  and  the  extent  of  the  findings  against  them,  should  be  laid  be- 
fore the  committee,  and  an  opportunity  afforded  for  a fair  statement  in  reply 
as  to  each  person  and  accusation.  If  the  conclusions  were  honest  deductions 
from  the  testimony,  there  could  be  no  possible  objection  to  this  course. 

“These  suggestions  being  self-evident,  it  seems  proper  to  refer  to  what  has 
in  fact  been  the  action  of  the  Alliance  members  of  the  committee.  Their 
caucuses  and  consultations  have  been  held  with  closed  and  locked  doors.  No 
other  member  of  the  committee  has  been  admitted.  A secret  report  has  been 
or  is  to  be  prepared.  That  it  reflects  upon  the  Republican  party  is  a'  fore- 
gone conclusion,  but  upon  what  person  or  persons  is  unknown.  A request  to 


110 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


have  this  report  laid  before  the  committee,  coupled  with  a statement  of  what 
the  report  of  other  members  of  the  committee  would  contain,  and  an  offer  to 
submit  a draft  of  it  so  far  as  prepared,  was  ignored  and  refused,  and  it  was 
announced  that  the  contents  of  the  report  would  not  be  divulged  until  all 
other  reports  were  completed.  (Page  606.)  This  action  seems  to  be  in  accord 
with  the  political  methods  of  the  party  which  was  in  control  of  the  House  at 
the  last  session  of  the  Legislature,  to  gain  admission  to  the  sessions  of  which, 
the  password  and  sign  were  more  potent  than  a properly  authenticated  card 
of  admission,  in  the  hands  of  the  uninitiated  citizen.  The  unfairness  of  this 
action,  both  to  the  parties  implicated,  and  to  those  members  of  the  committee 
who  believe  that  there  is  no  evidence  sufficient  to  warrant  a finding  against 
anyone,  is  manifest.  True  theories  and  correct  conclusions  must  be  con- 
sistent with  all  established  facts.  Where  no  opportunity  is  given  to  point 
out  the  error,  to  show  the  facts  inconsistent  therewith,  it  is  easy  to  suggest  a 
theory  or  reach  a conclusion,  and  to  support  it  by  garbled  extracts  from  the 
testimony  in  such  a way  as  to  make  it  seem  plausible  and  like  the  truth.” 

[We  h^ve  already  seen  how  much  Senator  Kimball  has  to  prate  of  “garbled 
extracts,”  and  we  shall  see  more  before  we  are  done. — Ed.] 

“The  facts  referred  to,  showing  the  origin  of  this  star-chamber  manifesto, 
should  of  themselves  be  a sufficient  answer  and  vindication  to  anyone  who,  by 
the  findings  of  this  so-called  report,  is  found  or  declared  to  be  in  any  way 
connected  with  the  Coffey ville  explosion.” 

[No  one  will  take  Mr.  Kimball’s  word  for  it,  but  will  read  the  report  itself, 
and  the  evidence  upon  which  it  is  based. — Ed.] 

“III. — Other  Findings,  with  References  to  the  Testimony  Supporting 
Them. — 1st.  We  find  that  Mr.  C.  A.  Henrie  was  not  at  Coffeyville  on  the  18th 
of  October,  1888;  that  he  was  not  the  man  who  left  the  box  containing  the 
explosive  with  Mr.  Upham,  if  in  fact  any  such  box  was  left  with  him;  and  that 
he  had  no  connection  whatever  with  the  explosion.  This  finding  is  supported 
by  such  indubitable  and  conclusive  proof  that  no  unprejudiced  court  or  jury 
would  hesitate  for  a moment  in  agreeing  to  it.” 

[See  Judge  Webb’s  review  of  this  point  later  in  this  chapter.  Also,  same 
letter  for  remarks  on  the  credibility  of  McCray,  Capper,  and  Scott. — Ed.] 

“H.  M.  Upham  testifies  positively  that  C.  A.  Henrie  was  not  the.  man  who 
delivered  the  box  to  him.  He  testified  that  the  man  who  brought  the  box 
to  the  office  stood  in  front  of  him,  with  the  light  of  a large  window  shining 
directly  in  his  face,  so  that  he  could  not  possibly  be  mistaken.  That  the  man 
was  heavier  and  older  than  Mr.  Henrie,  had  black  eyes,  whereas  Mr.  Henrie’s 
were  blue,  and  other  peculiarities  and  marks  about  his  face  that  Mr.  Henrie 
did  not  have.  (38,  39,  43.)” 

[But  Mr.  Kimball  adroitly  omits  to  quote  Mr.  Upham  (pp.  596,  597): 

Q.  Since  you  have  testified,  have  you  had  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Henrie 
with  reference  to  the  description  you  gave  of  the  individual  who  delivered  to 
you  the  box  of  dynamite,  or  explosive  substance,  on  the  18th  day  of  October, 
1888  ? A.  Well,  I do  not  remember  any  particular  conversation  that  I had 
with  him,  except  the  one  after  the  adjournment  of  the  sitting  of  this  com- 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


Ill 


mittee  in  the  supreme  court  room.  I think  it  was  immediately  after  I had 
testified.  He  congratulated  me  on  my  serenity  of  mind  under  your  cross  ex- 
amination; and  as  my  testimony  regarding  his  eyes  was  a little  mixed,  I called 
his  attention  to  it.  He  said,  “The  reason  of  that  is,  that  when  I am  excited, 
my  eyes  seem  to  grow  darker.”  And  that  is  about  all  I remember  of  that 
conversation.  There  were  quite  a number  standing  around;  it  was  not  a 
secret  conversation  at  all. 

Q.  Did  he  in  that  conversation  say  anything  about  the  peculiar  manner  in 
which  he  batted  his  eyes  when  excited?  A.  Yes,  sir;  he  said  he  winked  his 
eyes,  and  they  became  a little  darker  when  excited — seeming  to  help  me  out 
in  the  description  of  his  eyes. 

Q.  Who  was  present  at  the  time  you  had  the  conversation?  A.  Mrs.  Up- 
ham  was  standing  beside  me,  my  wife  — quite  a number  were  standing 
around,  but  I do  not  know  who  the  others  were. 

It  will  be  noted  that  in  the  earlier  days  of  the  session,  Mr.  Upham  be- 
lieved in  the  innocence  of  Henrie.  His  views  changed  during  the  investiga- 
tion, for  he  found  Henrie  to  possess  all  the  characteristics  he  at  first  failed  to 
observe,  even  to  the  mark  on  his  nose,  which  was  quite  noticeable  when  the 
light  fell  upon  it  at  the  proper  angle  to  make  it  plain.  This  was  common  re- 
mark about  the  Senate  chamber  during  the  sittings  there.  In  addition  to  the 
physical  characteristics,  Mr.  Upham  found  that  he  possessed  the  debased 
moral  nature  necessary  to  the  enactment  of  any  political  deviltry,  and  hear- 
ing all  the  evidence  as  he  did,  he  changed  front  in  his  opinions,  as  honest 
men  are  bound  sometimes  to  do. — Ed.] 

“Mr.  D.  0.  McCray  testifies  positively,  that  Mr.  Henrie  was  in  Topeka  on 
the  18th  of  October;  and  is  able  to  fix  the  day  beyond  the  possibility  of  a 
doubt  to  an  unprejudiced  mind.  He  was  at  that  time  associate  editor  of  the 
Topeka  Capital.  The  expose  of  the  Yidettes  was  published  in  that  paper 
October  19th,  and  Mr.  Henrie  was  in  the  office,  once  in  the  forenoon  assist- 
ing in  ‘making  up’  the  matter  containing  the  expose,  and  in  preparing  a 
heading  for  the  article;  and  again,  to  look  over  the  proofs.  (447,  453.) 

“In  this  connection,  it  should  be  noticed  that  the  expose  as  it  was  pub- 
lished in  the  Capital , and  other  papers,  was  mostly  written,  copied,  and  put 
into  shape,  by  Mr.  Henrie,  Mr.  Greer  assisting,  and  Mr,  Hutchins  exercising 
a supervision  over  it;  Mr.  Henrie  being  at  the  time  in  the  employ  of  the  Re- 
publican State  Central  Committee;  the  work  being  done  in  a room  at  the 
Windsor  Hotel,  at  Topeka.  That  it  was  planned  to  have  it  appear,  first  in 
the  Winfield  Courier , an  evening  paper,  and  on  the  next  day,  in  other  Repub- 
lican papers  in  the  State,  and  elsewhere.  In  order  to  accomplish  this,  the 
committee  had  procured  the  matter  to  be  put  in  type,  stereotyped,  and  when 
everything  was  ready,  and  a telegram  agreed  upon  was  sent  to  Mr.  Greer,  the 
editor  of  the  Courier;  he  was  to  publish  the  matter  in  his  paper,  and  the 
plates,  or  matrices,  were  to  be  at  once  sent  out  so  that  it  could  appear  in  the 
other  papers  on  the  next  day.  (Testimony  of  Greer,  95,666;  Hutchins,  513, 
522,  543.) 


112 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


“It  should  further  be  noted  that  the  plates  that  were  sent  out  only  in- 
cluded the  body  of  the  matter  constituting  the  expose,  the  editors  of  the  dif- 
ferent papers  being  left  to  furnish  such  display  headings  as  they  might  deem 
proper.  The  heading  in  the  Capital  occupied. nearly  a quarter  of  a column. 

( See  Capital , 98;  testimony  of  McCray,  453,  460.)  On  the  morning  of  October 
18th,  everything  being  ready,  Mr.  Hutchins  sent  to  Mr.  Greer  the  telegram 
agreed  upon,  ‘O.  K.  All  busy  here.’  (96,  522.)  The  expose  was  published  in 
the  Courier  that  evening,  and  in  the  Topeka  Capital  the  next  morning.  (98, 
473.) 

“Frank  C.  Scott,  who  was  foreman  of  the  Capital  office,  testifies  positively 
that  he  saw  Mr.  C.  A.  Henrie  in  the  editorial  rooms  of  the  Capital  with  Mr. 
McCray  on  the  18th  of  October.  He  is  able  to  identify  and  fix  the  date  from 
the  fact  that  it  was  the  day  before  the  Vidette  expose  was  published  in  the 
Capital.  He  says  that  he  went  to  the  office  about  half-past  twelve  o’clock 
and  found  the  stereotyped  plates  of  the  Vidette  expose  on  the  ‘turtle’  in  his 
room;  that  he  knew  nothing  about  the  matter,  and  went  to  the  editorial 
rooms  to  see  Mr.  McCray  about  it;  that  he  found  him  and  Mr.  Henrie  there 
in  consultation  in  reference  to  it,  and  Mr.  McCray  said  he  wanted  to  write  a 
heading  for  it.  He  swears  that  he  knows  that  the  paper  containing  the  ex- 
pose was  in  fact  published  on  the  day  it  bears  date,  the  19th,  the  next  day 
after  he  saw  Mr.  McCray  and  Mr.  Henrie  together  in  the  editorial  rooms  in 
consultation  in  reference  to  the  matter.  (460-461.) 

“Attention  is  here  called  to  a typographical  error  which  appears  in  the 
first  part  of  the  testimony  of  this  witness,  where,  in  asking  a question,  coun-  • 
sel  is  made  to  say  Friday,  October  the  17th,  instead  of  October  the  19th. 
This  error  is  also  corrected  in  the  errata.  The  error,  however,  is  immaterial, 
as  it  is  fully  corrected  by  subsequent  questions  and  the  answers  of  this  wit- 
ness thereto. 

“The  testimony  of  this  witness  was  regarded  as  so  clear  and  conclusive 
upon  this  question  as  to  the  whereabouts  of  Mr.  Henrie,  that  the  able  counsel 
for  the  Alliance  refrained  entirely  from  any  cross-examination.  (462.) 

“Arthur  Capper,  at  that  time  local  editor  of  the  Capital , testifies  clearly  and 
positively  that  he  saw  Mr.  Henrie  twice  on  the  18th  of  October,  at  Topeka, 
the  first  time  early  in  the  afternoon,  and  the  last  time  later  in  the  evening, 
after  the  Overmyer  meeting,  which  he  reported,  and  which  report  is  published 
in  the  Capital  of  the  19th,  together  with  an  item  written  by  Mr.  Henrie  in 
reference  to  the  same  meeting.  A further  fact  sworn  to  by  this  witness,  and 
which  precludes  the  possibility  of  any  mistake  by  confusing  this  meeting 
with  any  other  Overmyer  meetings  held  during  that  campaign,  is,  that  after 
this  meeting  was  over  Mr.  Henrie  telephoned  Mr.  Capper  that  the  meeting 
had  degenerated  into  a big  drunk,  and  the  latter  asked  him  to  write  it  up. 
That  later  in  the  evening,  Mr.  Henrie  came  to  the  Capital  office,  and  in  Mr. 
Capper’s  presence  wrote  an  item  in  regard  to  the  drunk,  which  appears  in 
the  Capital  of  the  19th,  with  the  report  of  the  meeting  referred  to.  (463.) 

“Henry  Booth  testifies  positively  that  he  saw  Mr.  Henrie  in  Topeka  at  the 
Republican  committee  rooms  on  the  18th  of  October,  the  day  before  the  pub- 
lication of  the  expose  by  the  Capital.  He  is  able  to  further  fix  the  date  be- 
yond the  possibility  of  a doubt  by  his  recollection  of  the  fact  that  he  was 
about  leaving  Topeka  to  attend  a Republican  rally  at  Ottawa,  which  was  held 
on  the  19fch.  He  was  giving  directions  to  Mr.  Hutchins,  the  secretary  of  the 
committee,  as  to  what  he  should  do  while  he  was  away  when  Mr.  Henrie  came 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


113 


into  the  room  where  they  were  talking.  He  attended  the  rally  at  Ottawa  the 
next  day,  which  was  the  19fch,  and  there  first  heard  of  the  explosion  at  Coffey- 
ville.  (469.)” 

[Concerning  the  reliability  of  Henry  Booth,  please  refer  to  Chapter  IV  of 
this  volume.] 

“C.  A.  Henrie  himself  testifies  positively  that  he  was  in  Topeka  on  October 
18th,  and  for  several  days  before  that  time,  engaged  in  preparing  the  Vidette 
expose;  that  he  never  was  in  Coffeyviile  in  his  life.  (173,  491.)  His  testimony 
agrees  with  Mr.  McCray’s,  as  to  assisting  in  preparing  the  heading  for  the 
expose  on  the  18th.  (495.)  He  testifies  that  he  was  at  the  Overmyer  meeting 
in  Topeka  on  the  evening  of  the  18th,  and  made  a partial  report  of  that 
meeting  for  Mr.  Cummings,  who  was  at  that  time  business  manager  of  the 
Daily  Sunflower.  (505.) 

‘•The  affidavits  of  John  F.  Cummings  (448)  and  Mrs.  Lucy  Barlow  (495) 
should  also  be  mentioned.  Mr.  Cummings  corroborates  Mr.  Henrie  as  to  the 
report  of  the  Overmyer  meeting;  and  both  affidavits  show  conclusively  that 
Mr.  Henrie  was  in  Topeka  on  the  18th  of  October.  Mr.  Henrie  explains 
how  he  came  to  procure  these  affidavits.  Mr.  Cummings  was  sick,  and  was 
going  away.  (504.)  Mrs.  Barlow,  a married  lady  with  a family,  frequently 
moved  from  place  to  place.  (502,  503.)  The  statements  of  witnesses  in  affida- 
vits, where  no  opportunity  is  given  to  cross-examine,  is  of  so  little  weight 
that  it  is  not  ordinarily  received  in  judicial  proceedings.  Especially  should 
such  evidence  be  rejected  in  this  kind  of  an  investigation,  unless  strongly 
corroborated  by  the  testimony  of  witnesses  who  appear  for  examination. 
These  affidavits,  being  corroborated  by  evidence  which  is  of  itself  conclusive, 
should  be  considered.  The  persons  making  them  are,  so  far  as  the  testimony 
shows,  respectable  people.  Their  credibility  is  not  in  any  way  impeached, 
and  the  fact  that  their  whereabouts  is  now  unknown  shows  that  it  was  a 
proper  and  prudent  step  to  secure  their  affidavits.” 

[ Mr.  Kimball  again  betrays  his  intense  partisanship  by  “garbling”  the 
record  in  quoting  only  such  portions  as  suit  his  purpose.  We  now  refer  the 
reader  to  the  testimony  of  A.  J.  R.  Smith,  which  the  honorable  Senator  for- 
got (?)  to  mention.  (240,  241). 

Q.  Do  you  know  a man  by  the  name  of  Cummings?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  his  given  name?  A.  J.  F. 

Q.  What  relation,  if  any,  did  he  have  with  the  paper  called  the  Sunflower , 
published,  I believe,  in  the  city  of  Topeka?  A.  He  had  no  relation  whatever 
with  it. 

Q.  Did  he,  on  the  18  th  day  of  October,  have  any  connection  or  relation 
with  that  paper,  either  as  editor,  foreman,  manager,  or  in  any  other  sense? 
A.  He  might  have  been  solicitor  for  advertising  or  job  work. 

Q.  WTas  he  general  manager  or  editor  at  that  time?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  he  foreman  of  the  office  ? A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  acquainted  with  him?  A.  I have  seen  him  off 
and  on  for  about  six  months,  maybe  a year;  I do  not  recall  when  I first  met 
him  or  when  I last  met  him. 


114 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Q.  Do  you  remember  of  having  any  conversation  with  him  with  reference 
to  an  affidavit  that  he  made  at  the  instance  of  Mr.  C.  A.  Henrie?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  that?  A.  I can  only  state  the  time  by  saying  that  it  was  a 
few  days  after  the  affidavit  had  been  given;  it  was  before  the  affidavit  was 
published. 

Q.  Now,  then,  you  may  state  to  the  committee  what  that  conversation  was. 
A.  He  said  to  me,  “I  have  given  Henrie  an  affidavit  to  help  him  out  of  his 
scrape,”  and  he  said,  “Can  they  do  anything  with  me  for  it?” 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  him?  A.  I said,  Was  not  the  affidavit  true? 

Q.  What  was  his  response  thereto  ? A.  He  said  “Of  course  not.”  After  study- 
ing a minute  or  so,  I replied:  I do  not  think  they  will  ever  trouble  you  about 
it;  that  is  all  the  conversation  that  was  had  upon  the  subject. 

Q.  Had  you  at  that  time  seen  the  affidavit?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  since  seen  a published  copy  of  the  affidavit?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  may  state  to  the  committee,  from  your  conversation  with  Mr.  Cum- 
mings and  your  examination  of  the  affidavit,  as  to  whether  or  not  the  con- 
tents thereof  were  true  ? A.  I had  no  conversation  with  Mr.  Cummings  upon 
the  subject  but  what  I have  recited. 

Q.  Were  you  familiar  with,  and  did  you  know  the  paper  called  the  Daily 
Sunflower?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  relation  did  you  have  with  that  paper?  A.  I had  no  relation  with 
the  paper,  other  than  a friendly  relation  with  the  parties  interested  in  it. 

Q.  I will  ask  you  to  state  to  the  committee  if  you  know  what  that  paper  is? 
(Handing  witness  a paper.)  A.  That  is  the  Daily  Sunflower. 

(Counsel  offered  and  read  in  evidence  the  following  local  from  the  paper 
referred  to:) 

“Hon.  David  Overmyer  spoke  at  the  Grand  last  night.” 

Q.  What  is  the  date  of  the  paper  to  which  your  attention  has  been  called? 
A.  October  19,  1888. 

Q.  Is  there  any  published  report  of  the  speech  of  Hon.  David  Overmyer  in 
that  paper,  as  delivered  by  him  on  the  18th  of  October,  1888?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  there  any  mention  of  his  speech  in  that  paper?  A.  It  simply  says  he 
made  a speech. 

By  Mr.  Curtis:  Q.  There  are  several  comments  in  the  paper  about  Mr.  Over- 
myer, are  there  not?  A.  There  are  three  editorial  comments  upon  Mr.  Over- 
myer. 

“ Did  Overmyer  sign  the  petition  for  the  mayor  and  council  to  discharge  the  police  last  sum- 
mer?” 

“ Is  Dave  the  supposed  champion  of  the  people  who  by  a special  act  of  the  Legislature  took 
from  the  voters  of  iShawnee  county  the  right  to  say  whether  or  not  they  would  have  jails  and 
jailer’s  residence,  and  by  that  act  had  the  commissioners  directed  to  build  the  same?  He  is 
that,  and  we  ask  the  people  what  kind  of  champion  he  is.” 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


115 


w- 


“When  Dave  Overmyer  talks  about  little  children  working  in  New  York,  does  he  think  the 
people  do  not  know  that  Grover  Cleveland  vetoed  a bill  prohibiting  the  employment  of  chil- 
dren under  thirteen  years  of  age  in  the  factories  of  New  York  ? ” 

“ Hon.  David  Overmyer  spoke  at  the  Grand  last  night.” 

Q.  Is  that  the  only  report  that  appears  in  that  paper  of  the  speech  delivered 
by  Hon.  David  Overmyer?  A.  That  is  all  the  report  of  the  speech,  but  I see 
some  more  reference  to  Mr.  Overmyer. 

(Mr.  Curtis  said  that  he  admitted  that  there  was  no  report  of  the  speech  in 
the  Sunflower  of  that  date.) 

Mrs.  Lucy  Barlow  was  a close  personal  friend  of  Henrie’s  wife,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  her  affidavit  was  secured  demonstrates  that  he  vas 
imposed  upon  and  jjid  not  have  time 

to  fully  consider  the  import  of  what  West  Fl^ih  Street' 

she  signed,  if  indeed  she  understood 
it  at  all.  She  was  living,  at  the  time 
of  securing  the  affidavit,  in  Kansas 
City,  Missouri,  and  Henrie,  accom- 
panied by  his  wife,  called  at  her  resi- 
dence on  Independence  avenue,  but 
she  was  not  at  home;  they  called 
again  later  in  the  day,  and  taking 
Mrs.  Barlow  with  them,  they  pro- 
ceeded to  Kansas  City,  Kansas,  where 
the  affidavit  was  signed  and  certified. 

It  has  never  yet  become  known  why 
they  passed  scores  of  notaries  in 
Kansas  City,  Missouri,  to  select  this 
one  in  Kansas  City,  Kansas.  The 

circumstances  surrounding  the  securing  of  this  affidavit  were  so  peculiar  as 
to  warrant  further  investigation.  Mrs.  Barlow  is  the  daughter  of  Mr.  Ed- 
win French,  and  they  lived  together  with  C.  A.  Henrie  and  family,  in  the 
same  “flat,”  a diagram  of  which  is  here  shown. 

During  the  excitement  incident  to  the  publication  of  the  Capital  article 
and  the  explosion  at  Coffeyville,  Mr.  French  sat  one  day  at  the  door  marked 
a in  the  above  diagram,  which  door  was  open.  A stranger  came  up  the  stairs 
marked  b and  knocked  at  Henrie’s  door,  marked  c — Mrs.  H.  responded  to 
the  knock  and  substantially  the  following  conversation  ensued: 

Stranger. — Is  Mr.  Henrie  at  home? 

Mrs.  Henrie. — He  is  not. 

S. — Can  you  tell  me  where  he  is? 

Mrs.  H. — I think  he  is  in  Kansas  City. 


— 

= 

A ® M 

- 

. A fl  A 

to  3 

*3  £ © 2 

CO  to 

= 

' 

C 

: 

Hall. 

- Henrie’s 

rooms. 

= 

e 

= 

to  . 

• a g 

zz: 

to  y QJ 

*3  a -a 

c3  ® w 

; 

-*J  s-c 

M S3 

Vacant. 

= 

116 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


S. — Can  you  give  me  his  whereabouts  or  tell  me  where  I can  find  him? 

Mrs.  H. — I cannot. 

After  some  more  questions  by  the  stranger,  who  seemed  very  desirous  of 
finding  Henrie,  he  departed,  and  Mrs.  Henrie  being  asked  who  the  stranger 
was,  replied  substantially:  “I  don’t  know  who  he  is;  there  are  so  many  men 
running  here  to  know  where  Charlie  is,  and  if  I knew,  I wouldn’t  tell  them; 
I ain’t  going  to  give  him  away.”  The  impression  upon  the  mind  of  Mr. 
French,  who  was  an  unwilling  listener,  was,  that  Mrs.  Henrie  had  been 
charged  to  keep  silent  about  her  husband’s  whereabouts  and  that  she  was  fol- 
lowing instructions. 

Read  now  the  affidavit  of  the  father  of  Mrs.  Barlow,  a man  who  made  this 
statement,  with  all  these  incidents  burned  into  his  mind  bj^his  close  associa- 
tion with  a man  charged  with  a great  crime.  (178.) 

bTATE  of  Kansas,  Linn  County,  ss. 

Edwin  French,  of  lawful  age,  being  first  duly  sworn,  on  his  oath  doth  say  that  he  is  ac- 
quainted with  one  C.  A.  Henrie,  of  Topeka,  Kansas,  and  has  been  acquainted  with  the  said  C. 
A.  Henrie  for  the  four  years  last  past.  To  my  personal  knowledge  the  said  C.  A.  Henrie  left 
his  home  in  Topeka,  Kansas,  one  or  two  days  before  the  announcement  in  the  daily  papers  of 
the  explosion  in  Coffeyville.  Kansas,  of  a dynamite  bomb  consigned  to  Winfield,  Kansas,  on 
the  date  of  October  18th,  1883,  and  to  my  knowledge  he  did  not  return  to  his  home  until  after 
the  above  announcement  of  the  said  explosion  in  the  daily  papers.  At  the  time  of  his  return, 

I was  standing  in  the  hall-way  of  Fifth  street  entrance  of  No.  119£  Fifth  street,  in  the  city  of 
Topeka,  Kansas,  at  the  hour  of  between  ten  and  eleven  p.m.  When  he  entered  he  had  in  his 
hand  a traveling  bag  or  “ gripsack,”  as  though  he  was  just  returned  from  a journey.  I said  to 
him  in  substance  as  follows:  “This  is  a nice  time  of  night  for  you  to  come  slipping  in  home,” 
to  which  remark  he  made  no  reply,  but  passed  on  upstairs.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and 
belief  he  remained  at  home  all  the  following  day.  Shortly  afterward,  I obtaiued  a copy  of  the 
daily  paper,  the  Kansas  City  Times,  charging  the  responsibility  for  the  said  explosion  of  dyna- 
mite on  the  said  C.  A.  Henrie.  I took  this  paper  to  him  and  called  his  attention  to  this  charge. 

I left  the  paper  with  him.  During  the  second  day  after  his  aforesaid  arrival,  the  request  came  - 
to  me  through  my  daughter,  Mrs.  Lucy  Barlow,  for  us  not  to  mention  his  being  at  home.  At 
various  times  during  the  succeeding  few  days  he  jokingly  referred  to  bombs  and  dynamite. 
After  tae  election,  as  my  memory  serves  me,  a suit  of  clothes  was  sent  to  the  house  for  him  in 
his  absence,  and  at  first  he  appeared  not  to  know  where  the  goods  came  from,  but  subsequently 
said  to  me:  “I  am  not  satisfied  with  a suit  of  clothes,  but  I will  have  the  position  promised  me 
in  the  Labor  Bureau  or  I will  raise  hell.”  It  was  common  talk  between  his  family  and  mine  for 
some  weeks,  that  he  was  to  have  a position  in  the  State  Labor  Bureau.  The  family  of  said  C.  A. 
Henrie  moved  into  the  said  119|  [west]  Fifth  street,  Topeka,  Kansas,  about  the  middle  of  Sep- 
tember, 1888,  and  during  the  absence  of  said  Henrie  in  New  York,  whither  he  said  he  was 
going  to  attend  a United  Labor,  or  Henry  George  convention  ; the  wife  of  C.  A.  Henrie  stated 
to  me  and  to  my  daughter  aforesaid,  that  he  had  received  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars  with  which  to  attend  said  convention.  I lived  in  the  same  house  with  C.  A.  Henrie,  No. 
119£  [west]  Fifth  street,  from  about  the  middle  of  September  till  about  December  15, 1888,  about 
which  time  I moved  to  Monroe  street,  Topeka,  and  ttience  in  a short  time  to  Kansas  City,  Mis- 
souri. I have  lived  in  Mound  City,  Kansas,  since  June,  1889,  and  am  a blacksmith  by  trade,  a 
life-long  Republican  in  politics,  and  served  four  years  in  the  United  States  navy. 

Edwin  French. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  2d  day  of  September,  1889. 

John  C.  Cannon,  Notary  Public. 

( Term  expires  May  3, 1893.) 

Mr.  Kimball  conveniently  forgets  (?)  to  mention  this  evidence  which  com- 
pletely destroys  the  credibility  of  the  Barlow  affidavit,  yet  the  Senator  per- 
sists in  quoting  that  and  endeavoring  to  hide  this,  only  to  throw  discredit 
upon  it  later  in  the  report.  Not  contented  to  simply  conceal,  so  far  as  possi- 
ble, those  portions  of  testimony  (French  and  Smith)  which  completely  over- 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


117 


throw  the  testimony  of  Cummings  and  Mrs.  Barlow,  he  goes  farther,  and 
asserts  in  his  report  that “ their  credibility  is  not  in  any  way  impeached.*’  Can 
blind  partisanship  and  conscienceless  “garbling”  go  farther?  — Ed.] 

“The  testimony  of  Judge  Reed  should  be  mentioned.  He  produced  the 
registration  books  of  the  ward  in  which  Mr.  Henrie  lived,  and  which  showed 
that  he  was  in  Topeka  and  registered  as  a voter  on  the  morning  of  October 
19th.  (482.)  The  testimony  of  several  witnesses  also  show's  that  he  was  in 
Topeka  on  the  17th,  attending  to  the  final  work  in  reference  to  the  publica- 
tion of  the  expose,  and  for  several  days  prior  to  that  time. 

“As  against  this  mass  of  testimony,  all  of  which,  excepting  probably  the 
two  affidavits,  will  be  recognized  as  legal  and  competent  evidence,  what  is 
there  in  the  way  of  proof  — it  should  be  remembered  that  charges  and  insinu- 
ations, no  matter  how  often  repeated,  prove  nothing  — that  would  be  received 
in  any  court  showing  that  Mr.  Henrie  was  not  in  Topeka,  or  that  he  was  in 
Coffey ville,  on  October  18th,  1888?  If  this  positive  and  uncontradicted  tes- 
timony as  to  his  whereabouts  on  that  day  was  all  stricken  out,  there  would 
still  be  nothing  from  which  any  unprejudiced  tribunal  could  find  that  he  was 
at  Coffeyville  on  that  day.” 

[Judge  Reed’s  testimony  is  entirely  worthy  of  credence.  He  is  a gentle- 
man who  appeared  to  good  advantage  on  the  stand.  His  testimony  concern- 
ing Henrie  is  straightfdrward  and  honest,  but  not  touching  a vital  point,  is  of 
no  value  in  the  controversy  on  either  side.  He  showed  the  registration  books 
to  prove  that  Henrie  was  in  Topeka  on  the  nineteenth  of  October,  which  in  no 
way  disproves  his  presence  in  Coffeyville  on  the  18th,  for  he  could  leave  that 
city  in  the  evening  and  be  in  Topeka  the  following  day. — Ed.] 

“It  has  been  suggested  by  certain  members  of  this  committee  that,  with  an 
extra  suit  of  clothes  and  a false  beard,  Mr.  Upham’s  description  of  the  man 
might  be  made  to  fit  Mr.  Henrie.  Mr.  Upham  describes  the  man  as  having  a 
beard  of  three  or  four  weeks’  growth.  It  is  well  known  that  false  beards  of 
this  kind  are  not  usually  made,  and  if  made  and  worn  would  at  once  betray  the 
fact.  Mr.  Upham  makes  no  statement  to  indicate  that  the  man  wore  a false 
beard,  and  he  points  out  other  physical  differences  between  Mr.  Henrie  and 
the  man  in  question  which  cannot  be  counterfeited,  and  testifies  positively 
that  Mr.  Henrie  is  not  the  man.  But  it  has  been  more  than  suspected  by  mem- 
bers of  this  committee  that  Mr.  Upham  was  not  telling  the  whole  truth  about 
this  matter.  And  this  has  been  construed,  by  those  whose  prejudices  would 
lead  them  in  that  direction,  to  mean  that  he  was  endeavoring  to  shield  Henrie 
or  the  Republican  party.  Mr.  Upham  knows  that  the  truth  of  his  story  of 
the  strange  man  leaving  the  box  with  him  is  not  unquestioned.  His  first  cross- 
examination  by  Republican  counsel  at  the  beginning  of  the  investigation 
showed  that.  Why,  then,  should  he  shield  Mr.  Henrie?  Would  it  not  be  more 
natural  for  a man  so  situated  to  fasten  the  responsibility  upon  somebody  else 
who  was  already  charged  with  it,  and  thus  clear  himself  from  suspicion?  Why 
should  he  endeavor  to  protect  the  person  or  political  party,  the  representa- 
tives of  which  were  plainly  showing  their  belief  that  he,  himself,  and  not  any 
other  man,  was  responsible  for  the  explosion?  Members  of  the  committee 
who  are  forced  to  go  to  Mr.  Upham’s  testimony  from  which  to  find  that  Mr. 
Henrie  is  guilty  are  indeed  hard  pressed  for  evidence  to  support  their  views. 

* — 7 


118 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


“Now  as  to  the  testimony  of  I.  M.  Waldrop,  who  was  station  agent  at 
Yaleda,  about  twelve  miles  east  of  Coffey ville,  at  that  time.  He  says  that 
just  after  it  was  getting  dark  in  the  evening  after  he  heard  of  the  explosion, 
he  saw  two  strangers  at  the  depot,  and  that  Mr.  Henrie  would  fill  the  bill  as 
to  one  of  them  as  near  as  he  could  recollect;  would  not  say  positively,  but 
rather  believed  that  he  was  one  of  the  men  he  saw  there  in  1888.  (571,  572.) 
This  part  of  Mr.  Waldrop’s  testimony  should  be  considered  in  the  light  of  the 
admission  that  he  makes,  that  before  he  was  called  to  the  stand  he  was  taken 
in  charge  by  a so-called  detective  by  the  name  of  Highleyman,  who  has 
several  times  appeared  upon  scene's  during  this  investigation  as  a witness 
and  otherwise,  and  by  him  conducted  to  the  door  of  the  room  where  the 
committee  was  in  session  and  told  that  Mr.  Henrie,  or  the  man  suspected  of 
being  at  Yaleda,  was  in  the  room.  (572.)  What  other  hints  he  received  from 
the  detective,  we  are  not  advised,  but  as  showing  the  feelings  and  prejudice 
of  the  latter  in  the  matter,  we  refer  to  his  testimony  where  he  swears  he  does 
not  believe  a man  could  have  been  convicted  of  this  crime  if  he  would  con- 
fess his  guilt.  ( 580.  See  also  242,  245.)  Mr.  Waldrop  further  testified  that 
the  man  at  the  depot  who  resembled  Mr.  Henrie  was  larger  or  fleshier  every 
way  than  Mr.  Henrie,  with  a fuller  face,  and  that  both  of  the  men  there  had 
beards  of  one  or  two  weeks’  growth.  (574.)  The  contradictions  and  inaccu- 
racies of  his  statements  should  be  noted.  He  says  first,  that  he  presumes  he 
heard  of  the  explosion  on  the  same  evening  that  it  happened,  but  is  not 
positive  (571);  again,  says  he  is  positive  he  heard  of  it  the  same  evening 
(573);  and  again,  says  he  is  pretty  positive,  but  could  not  say,  it  has  been  so 
long  since  the  explosion.  He  testified  that  he  had  quite  a conversation  with 
the  man  he  thought  Mr.  Henrie  resembled,  but  says  nothing  about  his  having 
any  peculiar  accent.  He  told  Mr.  Clifford  in  1888,  that  he  talked  politics 
with  this  man;  that  he  had  foreign  accent,  and  was  evidently  not  of  American 
birth.  (369.)  Mr.  Henrie  has  no  foreign  accent,  and  is  of  American  birth. 
If  he  was  there,  fleeing  from  the  scene  of  a crime,  and  was  trying  to  put  on  a 
foreign  accent  as  a disguise,  he  would  not  be  talking  politics;  he  would  have 
kept  himself  out  of  the  way,  and  had  as  little  to  say  as  possible.  The  descrip- 
tion which  Mr.  Waldrop  gave  to  Sheriff  Connor  (603)  differs  in  many  other 
respects  from  that  which  he  now  gives.  (574.) 

“ The  testimony  of  Mr.  N.  M.  Clifford,  a deputy  sheriff,  in  reference  to  the 
description  of  the  two  men  given  him  by  Mr.  Waldrop,  and  which  was  taken 
down  at  the  time  (369),  show  his  statement  in  regard  to  the  foreign  accent  of 
the  person  now  said  to  resemble  Mr.  Henrie,  and  other  discrepancies  between 
the  description  given  then  and  now,  which  tend  materially  to  weaken  Mr. 
Waldrop’s  testimony.  And  there  is  nothing  in  any  of  Mr.  Clifford’s  testi- 
mony that  in  any  way  tends  to  show  that  Mr.  Henrie  was  there  at  that  time. 
Mr.  Clifford  says  he  heard  of  two  strangers  who  had  stopped  at  the  Southern 
Hotel,  in  Coffey ville,  on  October  18th,  registered  as  Chart  Harvey  and  James 
Koken,  of  Cheney,  Kansas.  He  secured  a description  from  the  landlord,  and 
hearing  that  they  had  gone  east,  went  to  Yaleda  and  saw  Mr.  Waldrop,  and  got 
from  him  a description  of  the  two  men  that  he  had  seen.  (369.)  While  there 
were  some  variations  in  the  descriptions  of  the  two  men,  as  given  by  the  land- 
lord and  by  Waldrop,  yet  he  thought  they  were  the  same  persons.” 

[Mr.  Kimball  recognizes  the  peculiar  strength  of  Waldrop’s  testimony  ow- 
ing to  his  frankness  of  manner,  and  hence  his  studied  effort  to  throw  a cloud 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


119 


over  its  credibility.  Waldrop  was  told  that  a party  was  in  the  Senate  cham 
ber  who  was  suspected  of  being  at  Yaleda  October  18,  in  the  evening.  He 
went  inside  the  rear  door  and  stood  for  about  ten  minutes  scanning  the  people 
present  and  failed  to  find  a man  who  resembled  either  of  those  whom  he  saw 
at  Yaleda.  He  started  across  the  room  to  a seat,  and  in  passing  his  quick 
eye  caught  sight  of  one  who  had  been  hidden  from  his  view  by  the  portly  form 
of  Judge  Webb.  At  once  he  said,  “That  is  the  man,”  and  this  man  was  C.  A. 
Henrie.  When  Mr.  Waldrop  was  called  to  the  stand  Henrie  had  urgent  busi- 
ness in  the  cloak  room,  and  business  was  suspended  until  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms  could  discover  his  whereabouts  and  bring  him  in  to  be  identified,  as  he 
was  in  the  following  language  (572): 

Q.  After  having  observed  Mr.  Henrie  here,  and  instituting  such  comparisons 
in  your  mind  as  you  are  able  to  do,  what  is  your  best  judgment  as  to  whether 
he  is  one  of  the  men  whom  you  saw  on  the  18th  of  October,  at  Yaleda?  A. 
Well,  I rather  believe  he  is. 

The  caution  of  Waldrop  showed  his  entire  lack  of  prejudice  and  a desire 
to  wrong  no  one, nor  to  defeat  the  ends  of  justice  by  taking  refuge  in  the  “for- 
getfulness” so  conveniently  useful  to  several  of  the  Republican  witnesses. — Ed.] 

“ The  testimony  of  Mrs.  Cougher  should  also  be  mentioned.  It  is  a pity  that 
the  readers  of  this  report  cannot  see  this  woman  as  she  appeared  to  the  com- 
mittee— a hardened,  abandoned  woman,  divorced  from  her  first  husband,  sep- 
arated from. her  last,  with  whom  she  had  lived  in  adultery,  as  she  admitted, 
for  three  months  before  she  was  married  to  him;  the  venom  of  her  unbridled 
tongue  seemed  directed  against  everyone.  So  far  as  her  testimony  bears 
upon  this  question,  she  said,  in  substance,  that  her  husband  told  her  — we  pre- 
sume this  was  before  they  had  separated,  though  the  testimony  does  not  show 
— that  Mr.  Henrie  was  the  man  who  delivered  the  box  of  dynamite  at  Coffey- 
ville,  to  be  deposited  at  the  Courier  office,  and  finally  to  injure  the  Yincent 
brothers;  and  that  Mr.  Hutchins  and  Mr.  Greer’s  names  were  mentioned  in 
connection  with  the  matter.  (211,  212.)  This  testimony  was  admitted  over  ob- 
jections which  ought  to  have  been  sustained.  It  was  hearsay  of  the  worst 
kind.  Was  Mr.  Cougher  stating  what  he  knew,  or  what  he  had  heard,  or  had 
read  in  the  Nonconformist  or  some  other  paper,  or  where  did  he  get  his  in- 
formation? For  many  good  reasons  the  law  provides  expressly  that  conver- 
sations between  husband  and  wife  shall  not  be  received  in  evidence.  (General 
Statutes  of  1889,  sec.  4418.)  So  this  is  no  evidence  at  all.  Beyond  this,  she 
testified  that  she  heard  her  husband,  Mr.  Cougher,  say,  laughingly,  to  Mr. 
Henrie,  “Where  did  you  stop  while  at  Coffeyville?  ” In  reply  to  which,  she 
says  Mr.  Henrie  stated  the  name  of  the  hotel,  but  she  did  not  remember  it. 
(212.)  Mr.  Cougher,  although  unfriendly  to  the  present  administration,  be- 
cause he  did  not  get  the  appointment  as  Labor  Commissioner  (357),  posi- 
tively denied  the  statements  made  by  this  woman,  as  also  did  Mr.  Henrie. 
(493,  494.)” 

[ Mr.  Kimball  here  outdoes  himself  in  vituperation,  for  the  purpose  of 
breaking  down  the  credibility  of  this  witness,  and  if  shame  were  a possible 


120 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


thing  to  an  “age  of  consent”  Senator,  (see  p.  472,  Senate  Journal  1889,  where 
is  recorded  Mr.  Kimball’s  vote  for  the  bill  to  reduce  the  “age  of  consent”  to 
12  years,)  surely  his  cheek  would  color  when  he  looks  at  the  above  extract 
from  his  report.  Suppose  we  admit  she  was  twice  unfortunate  in  marital  af- 
fairs. Does  that  destroy  her  credibility?  When  she  married  Mr.  Cougher,  it 
seems  he  had  not  been  divorced  from  his  former  wife  the  necessary  time  re- 
quired by  law,  and  the  ceremony  was  repeated  — this  is  the  “adultery”  re- 
ferred to  by  the  Senator.  (See  Mrs.  Cougher’s  testimony  later  on.) 

Mr.  Kimball  rejects  the  woman's  evidence,  yet  accepts  with  a hearty  in- 
dorsement the  man's , when  both  are  morally  and  legally  in  the  same  position. 
We  protest  against  this  unfairness  — beg  pardon,  we  forgot  for  this  moment 
that  the  Senator  was  incapable  of  fairness.  Her  language  and  bearing  before 
the  committee  was  lady  like,  and  she  had  no  harsh  language  for  anyone,  and  her 
tongue  was  not  “directed  against”  anyone.  She  admitted,  when  expressly 
asked  by  Republican  counsel,  that  she  was  not  living  with  her  husband,  and  when 
farther  pushed  admitted  that  the  feeling  existing  between  them  “was  not  the 
most  pleasant*”  but  she  said  not  one  word  against  him  or  against  anyone  else, 
except  as  the  truth  must  be  told  in  answer  to  questions  put  by  counsel. 
She  exhibited  no  feeling  of  ill-will  toward  anyone,  and  the  above  exhibition 
of  vituperation  from  the  Senator’s  pen  can  only  be  explained  on  the  theory 
that  she  told  the  truth,  and  her  credibility  must  be  questioned,  even  if  it 
should  ruin  the  future  prospects  of  a woman  having  four  children,  three  of 
them  dependent  upon  her  own  efforts  for  a living.  Because  Mr.  Kimball  has 
seen  fit  to  wantonly  attack  this  witness,  we  append  her  testimony  in  full,  and 
call  attention  to  that  portion  regarding  Governor  Humphrey’s  alleged  visit  to 
the  Labor  Bureau.  (Questions  21,  22,  23, 24.)  And  again,  in  the  cross-examina- 
tion, when  the  Governor  was  pointed  out  to  her,  notice  how  promptly  and 
clearly  she  states  that  he  was  not  the  man  who  had  been  represented  to  her 
as  being  the  Governor.  Her  manner  on  the  witness  stand  convinced  all  un- 
prejudiced persons  present  of  the  truth  of  her  evidence,  which  is  here  intro- 
duced. 

First,  however,  concerning  the  denials.  No  one  ever  pretends  to  believe  or 
pay  any  attention  to  what  Henrie  may  admit  or  deny,  but  from  p.  357  we  clip 
Mr.  Cougher’s  alleged  “denial.” 

Q.  I will  ask  you  to  state  if  you  ever  at  any  time  told  your  wife,  Anna 
Cougher,  that  you  knew  of  the  explosion  at  Coffey ville,  and  that  the  object 
was  to  deposit  a box  in  the  office  of  the  Courier  at  Winfield?  A.  No,  sir;  not 
to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  your  wife  that  C.  A.  Henrie  was  the  man  who  delivered 
the  box  at  Coffeyville?  A.  Not  that  I recollect  of. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Henrie  ever  say  to  you  in  the  presence  of  your  wife,  while  talk- 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


121 


ing  about  the  charges  contained  in  the  red  book,  that  he  was  at  Coffeyville, 
and  give  you  the  name  of  the  hotel  at  which  he  stopped?  A.  Not  to  my 
recollection. 

It  is  noticeable  that  he  does  not  “positively  deny  ” the  statements,  but  takes 
refuge  in  general  forgetfulness. 

Mrs.  J.  G.  Cougheb,  being  duly  sworn  to  testify  to  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  upon  the  subject-matter  under  investigation, 
testified  as  follows:  (pp.  209  to  216 ) 

By  Mr.  Henderson:  Q.  You  may  state  your  name  to  the  committee.  A. 
Mrs.  J.  G.  Cougher. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  J.  G.  Cougher,  who  was  upon  the  witness  stand 
yesterday?  A.  I am. 

Q.  What  relation  do  you  bear  to  him?  A.  I am  his  wife. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  business  Mr.  Cougher  was  engaged  in  in  1889?  A. 
He  was  Assistant  Labor  Commissioner  of  the  State  of  Kansas. 

Q.  During  any  part  of  that  year  were  you  engaged  in  work  in  the  office  in 
which  he  was  employed?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  duties  did  you  perform  there?  A.  Such  as  he  instructed  me  to, 
such  as  filling  out  reports,  looking  them  over  and  sorting  tljem  out. 

Q.  There  as  a sub-clerk?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  of  the  time  during  the  year  that  I have  mentioned  were  you 
at  work  in  the  office?  A.  I was  not  at  work,  but  was  there  the  greater  part 
of  the  time,  according  to  his  wishes. 

Q.  Were  you  at  that  time  acquainted  with  one  Mr.  McCray?  A.  No,  sir; 
not  acquainted. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  when  you  met  him?  A.  I knew  him,  for  I had  been 
told  that  he  was  Mr.  McCray. 

Q.  By  whom  were  you  informed?  A.  Mr.  Cougher  introduced  me  to  him. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  from  any  source  what  duties  he  at  that  time  performed? 
A.  He  told  me  he  was  in  the  Governor’s  office. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  one  C.  A.  Henrie?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  see  him  in  the  room  now?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  the  gentleman  sitting  there  the  other  side  of  Mr.  Curtis?  (Coun- 
sel points  to  Mr.  Henrie.)  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  acquainted  with  Mr.  Henrie?  A.  A little  over 
two  years;  since  November  or  December,  two  years  ago. 

Q.  During  that  period  of  time,  I will  ask  you  to  state  to  the  committee  if 
you  resided  in  the  same  house  with  him?  A.  I had  a room  in  his  house. 

Q.  Who  occupied  that  room?  A.  I did,  myself. 

Q.  In  company  with  whom?  A.  No  one,  except  at  times. 


122 


POPtTLISf  HANDBOOK. 


Q.  Was  your  husband  with  you  at  that  time?  A.  I had  no  husband  at  that 
time. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Governor  Humphrey?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  him  when  you  see  him?  A.  I think  I would. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  having  seen  him  in  the  office  in  which  you  worked 
in  1889?  A.  At  one  time  I was  told  that  that  was  Governor  Humphrey. 

Q.  By  whom  were  you  so  informed?  A.  Mr.  Henrie. 

Q.  I will  ask  you  now  to  state  to  the  committee  if  you  had  any  conversa- 
tion with  Mr.  McCray  in  the  office  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  or  the  La- 
bor Commissioner  with  reference  to  any  affidavit  that  was  then  required  of 
Mr.  Henrie.  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  may  state  to  the  committee  when  that  was.  A.  I cannot  say  what 
time  it  was;  it  was  in  the  middle  of  the  summer  — perhaps  August  — when  he 
came  to  the  office.  Mr.  Henrie  was  out.  I was  the  only  one  in  the  office,  as 
my  husband  was  sick  and  at  home.  He  asked  me  where  Mr.  Henrie  was.  I 
told  him  he  had  just  stepped  out  and  that  he  would  be  in  presently.  He 
waited  a little  while,  and  then  went  somewhere  out  of  the  room.  Mr.  Henrie 
did  not  come,  and  he  came  back  again  in  a few  moments.  Mr.  Henrie 
came,  and  Mr.  McCray  handed  him  these  affidavits,  telling  him  he  would  have 
to  sign  it,  and  told  him:  “This  is  the  only  way  out  of  it.”  These  are  the 
identical  words. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  occasion  to  examine  the  affidavits,  or  either  of  them, 
that  at  that  time  was  delivered  to  Mr.  Henrie?  A.  I did;  one  of  them. 

Q.  Were  these  affidavits  left  in  the  office  in  the  custody  of  any  person  in 
the  absence  of  Mr.  Henrie?  A.  No,  sir;  they  were  left  with  Mr.  Henrie. 

Q.  Which  affidavit  was  it  that  you  read?  A.  The  one  I read  was  pertaining 
— was  wanting  him  to  make  a denial  of  the  charges  that  were  made  against 
him  in  this  dynamite  explosion. 

Q.  Who  do  you  mean  when  you  refer  to  “him?”  A.  Mr.  Henrie. 

Q.  I will  ask  you  to  examine  the  affidavit  herein  contained,  (calling  wit- 
ness’s attention  to  exhibit  6,  at  the  bottom  of  column  three  of  page  one,) 
and  state  to  this  committee  whether  or  not  that  is  a copy  of  the  affidavit 
which  you  read,  or  the  one  to  which  you  refer?  A.  That  is  just  as  near  as  I 
can  remember  it. 

[Here  follows  copy  of  affidavit.] 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  many  affidavits  were  presented  to  Mr.  Henrie  by 
Mr.  McCray  at  the  time  of  the  conversation  to  which  we  have  already  re- 
ferred? A.  Two. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  time  of  day  it  was  that  Mr.  McCray  and  Mr. 
Henrie  had  the  conversation  in  relation  to  the  affidavit  about  which  you  have 


REPUBLICAN  PEP  OPT. 


128 


just  testified?  A.  I do  not  know  just  what  time  it  was;  in  the  forenoon,  near 
noon. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  what  Mr.  Henrie  did  with  the  affidavits  at  that  time? 
A.  He  put  them  in  his  pocket. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  afterward?  A.  One  of  them. 

Q.  When,  with  reference  to  the  conversation  between  himself  and  Mr.  Mc- 
Cray? A.  After  that.  He  just  handed  them  to  my  husband  when  he  goi 
able  to  come  to  the  office  to  read,  and,  laughing,  Mr.  Cougher  said  to  him, 
“Can  you  swear  to  that?”  Henrie  laughed  back  and  said,  “I  can  swear  to 
anything.” 

Q.  When  did  that  conversation  take  place?  A.  Soon  after  the  affidavits 
were  brought  in  there,  in  the  middle  of  the  summer. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  how  many  days?  A.  No,  sir;  it  was  soon  after- 
ward. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  fact  of  the  publication  and  circulation  of  a book 
called  “The  Red  Book?”  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Published  and  circulated  by  the  Vincent  brothers?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I re- 
member of  seeing  it  in  the  office  when  it  was  handed  around  to  read. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  hearing  any  conversation  between  your  husband 
and  Mr.  Henrie  in  reference  to  the  contents  of  that  book?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  that  conversation,  or  those  conversations,  in  substance?  A. 
Well,  it  was  only  in  regard  to  what  the  book  was  written  about,  exposing  Mr. 
Henrie  and  claiming  he  was  the  guilty  man. 

Q.  What^did  Mr.  Henrie  say  in  answer  to  the  charges  contained  in  the  red 
book  against  himself?  A.  Well,  he  said  he  did  not  give  (with  an  oath);  that 
he  got  a job,  anyway. 

Q.  What  job  did  he  refer  to?  A.  I supposed  he  referred  to  the  clerkship  in 
the  Labor  Bureau  Department. 

Q.  Was  it  a common  thing  for  your  husband  and  Mr.  Henrie  to  converse 
with  reference  to  the  contents  of  this  book?  A.  It  was  an  every-day  subject. 

Q.  In  that  connection  was  there  anything  said  about  Mrs.  Lucy  Barlow? 
A.  No,  sir;  that  was  prior  to  that. 

Q.  Well,  you  my  state  what  was  said  by  Mr.  Henrie  with  reference  to  Mrs. 
Lucy  Barlow.  A.  The  only  recollection  I have  of  anything  was  in  Mr.  Hen- 
rie’s  house,  and  we  were  speaking  about  her  having  the  room  that  I had,  and 
he  saying  that  he  could  get  an  affidavit  from  her. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  he  said  as  to  the  character  or  kind  of  affidavit 
he  could  obtain  from  her?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  or  not  he  said  in  that  conversation,  or  any 
conversation  you  had  with  him,  or  heard  between  himself  and  any  other  per- 
son, that  she  would  swear  to  anything  that  he  desired?  A.  No,  sir. 


124 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  Mr.  Henrie  say  to  any  person  in  your  presence,  or  to 
yourself,  the  object  of  the  dynamite  that  exploded  in  Coffeyville?  A.  I never 
heard  Mr.  Henrie  say  anything  about  that. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversations  with  any  persons  with  reference  to 
the  object?  A.  I did  with  Mr.  Cougher. 

Q.  When  was  that  with  reference  to  the  publication  of  the  book  that  had 
been  designated  as  “ The  Red  Book?”  A.  Sometime  afterwards. 

Q.  What  was  that  conversation? 

Mr.  Curtis  objected  to  the  reception  of  this  testimony,  on  the  ground  that 
it  calls  for  a conversation  between  husband  and  wife,  and  is  clearly  incompe- 
tent; mere  hearsay  evidence,  and  too  remote  to  be  of  any  value  to  the  com- 
mittee. 

Senator  Kimball  said  he  thought  the  testimony  oijght  to  be  excluded. 

The  objection  was  overruled  by  the  committee,  and  the  witness  was  directed 
to  answer. 

A.  He  said  the  object  was  to  deposit  it  in  the  Courier  office  at  Winfield, 
Kansas,  and  finally  injure  the  Vincent  brothers. 

Q.  Did  he  in  that  conversation  state  to  you  anything  that  Mr.  Henrie  had 
said  to  him  in  reference  to  that  matter?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  In  that  or  any  other  conversation,  was  there  anything  said  about  the 
person  who  delivered  the  box  of  dynamite  to  the  express  agent  at  Coffeyville? 
A.  Between  Mr.  Cougher  and  myself  ? Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  may  state  to  the  committee  what  that  was.  A.  He  said,  “Mr.  Hen- 
rie was  the  man;”  these  words.  m 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Henrie,  or  did  you  hear  any 
conversation  between  your  husband  and  Mr.  Henrie,  in  which  Mr.  Henrie  said 
anything  in  reference  to  the  fact  of  his  visit  to  Winfield,  Kansas,  at  any  time 
during  the  year  1888?  A.  Nothing,  only  that  he  admitted  that  he  had  been 
there. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  in  connection  with  the  fact  of  his  visit  to  Winfield?  A. 
A.  Nothing  more  than  that  he  had  been  there. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  about  what  he  handed  the  boys?  A.  He  said 
he  had  a drink  with  the  boys. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  Mr.  Henrie  make  that  remark  yourself?  A.  I did. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  Mr.  Henrie  say  anything  about  where  he  stopped  when  in 
Coffeyville  at  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the  box  of  dynamite  there  to  the  ex- 
press agent?  A.  Nothing  more  than  that  Mr.  Cougher  laughed  and  said  to 
Mr.  Henrie,  “Where  did  you  stop  while  at  Coffeyville?”  Mr.  Henrie  stated 
the  name  of  the  hotel,  but  I do  not  remember  what  it- was. 

Q.  State  to  the  committee  if  you  heard  any  conversation  between  your 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


125 


y4 


husband  and  Mr.  Henrie,  immediately  before  the  adjournment  of  the  Legisla- 
ture of  this  State  two  years  ago.  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  if  that  conversation  referred  to  his  appointment,  you  may  state 
what  was  said.  A.  Mr.  Oougher  came  down  and  I was  in  the  room;  Mr. 
Cougher  said  to  Mr.  Henrie,  “I  do  not  believe  you  will  get  a job.”  Mr.  Hen- 
rie said,  “I  will;  they  dare  not  refuse  me  now.” 

Q.  In  any  conversation  between  Mr.  Henrie  and  your  husband,  were  there 
names  of  other  persons  mentioned  in  connection  with  this  Coffeyville  dyna- 
mite explosion?  A.  Yes,  sir;  two  others. 

Q.  You  may  state  the  names  of  these  persons.  A.  One  was  Mr.  Hutchins, 
and  one  was  Mr.  Greer. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  was  said,  and  in  what  connection  these  names 
were  mentioned?  A.  Nothing  more  than  that  they  would  be  of  no  assistance 
to  him  in  getting  his  position. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said,  in  that  connection,  as  to  the  parties  named 
being  compelled  to  aid  him?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  in  that  conversation  with  reference  to  the  Re- 
publican State  Central  Committee?  A.  Never  heard  it  talked  about. 

Q.  Generally,  and  in  connection  with  this  matter?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  call  to  mind  any  special  statements  of  facts  that  were  made  by 
Mr.  Henrie  to  your  husband  in  your  presence  in  relation  to  the  Republican 
State  Central  Committee?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  state  to  the  committee  that  you  have  not  even  heard  it  spoken 
of?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Prior  to  the  delivery  to  Mr.  Henrie  of  the  affidavits  about  which  you 
have  already  testified,  I will  ask  you  to  state  to  the  committee  if  Governor 
Humphrey  came  in  the  office  where  you  were?  A.  At  one  time. 

Q.  When  was  that  in  reference  to  the  time  of  the  execution  of  the  affida- 
vits in  question?  A.  It  was  before  the  execution,  as  they  had  not  been 
signed  yet;  he  said  they  would  have  to  be  signed. 

Q.  You  may  state  to  the  committee  what  the  Governor  said  when  he  came 
into  the  room.  A.  Well,  he  just  said,  “Sign  them;”  that  is  all  I heard. 

By  Mr.  Cubtts:  Q.  Where  are  you  living  now?  A.  Salida,  Colorado. 

Q.  When  did  you  come  to  this  city?  A.  Last  Monday. 

Q.  Where  have  you  been  stopping  since?  A.  At  number  711  Quincy  street, 
at  my  mother’s. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Vincent,  sitting  by  you?  A.  Monday  night  I was  in- 
troduced to  him  in  a lawyer’s  office. 

Q.  Are  you  living  with  your  husband  now?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  since  you  lived  with  your  husband?  A.  It  has  been  little  over^ 
a year  — about  thirteen  months. 


12B 


Populist  hauu-Poou, 


Q.  Were  you  living  with  him  when  you  occupied  rooms  in  the  house  that 
Mr.  Henrie  lived  in?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  living  at  the  time  you  worked  or  assisted  in  the  office? 
A.  On  Buchanan  street. 

Q.  What  are  the  feelings  that  exist  now  between  yourself  and  your  hus- 
band? A.  They  are  not  the  most  pleasant  in  the  world. 

Q.  What  is  the  feeling  existing  between  yourself  and  Mr.  Henrie?  A.  All 
right;  I have  no  personal  feeling  against  him. 

Q.  You  say  that  Mr.  Henrie  said  or  admitted  that ‘he  had  been  to  Coffey- 
ville?  A.  He  admitted  it  to  my  husband  in  my  presence. 

Q.  When  was  it  that  he  spoke  about  having  been  down  to  Winfield?  A.  It 
was  just  after  this  book  was  published,  and  the  statement  was  going  around 
through  the  papers,  and  was  daily  talk. 

Q.  Was  that  at  the  same  time  he  admitted  to  have  been  down  to  Coffey ville? 
A.  No,  sir;  there  might  have  been  two  or  three  days’  difference. 

Q.  You  say  that  your  husband  asked  him  where  he  stopped  in  Coffey  ville, 
in  a joking  manner?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  most  of  the  talk  that  was  had  there  in  the  office 
about  this  red  book  was  in  a joking  manner?  A.  Not  all  of  it. 

Q.  Well,  was  it  not  all  with  reference  to  the  connection  that  Mr.  Henrie  had 
in  the  matter?  A.  It  did  not  seem  to  worry  him. 

Q.  Was  it  not  like  other  matters  published  about  a person  reflecting  upon 
their  character,  and  they  did  not  like  to  say  anything  about  it  only  in  a jok- 
ing manner?  A.  He  did  not  like  to  hurt  his  feelings  any  more  than  was  nec- 
essary. 

Q.  How  did  Mr.  Henrie  reply  to  your  husband,  in  reference  to  the  hotel  he 
stopped  at?  A.  Candidly  he  told  where  he  stopped,  but  I do  not  remember. 

Q.  Was  it  at  the  Bobbitt  House?  A.  I would  not  undertake  to  say. 

Q.  Does  that  sound  like  it?  A.  I do  not  know. 

Q.  Is  that  the  time  he  claimed  he  drank  with  the  boys?  A.  No,  sir;  at 
Winfield. 

Q.  Were  these  affidavits  signed  at  the  time  Mr.  McCray  had  them  in  the 
office?  A.  Certainly  not. 

Q.  How  many  days.after  were  they  signed,  if  you  know?  A.  I do  not  know. 

Q.  Was  the  one  signed  at  the  time  you  read  it  over?  A.  I read  it  once  be- 
fore it  was  signed,  and  once  afterward. 

Q.  It  was  not  hid  in  the  office  from  you,  was  it?  A.  I never  looked  for  it; 
I do  not  know  whether  it  was  or  not. 

Q.  In  whose  handwriting  was  that  affidavit?  A.  I do  not  know. 

4 Q.  Was  it  in  Mr.  Henrie’s  handwriting?  A.  I do  not  know.  I would  not 


RePuRLICAN  REPORT. 


12? 

know  his  handwriting;  although  I have  seen  it  a great  deal  in  the  office,  I 
would  not  know  it  if  I should  see  it  now. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  McCray  bring  it  there  already  prepared?  A.  All  except  the 
signing,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Isn’t  it  a fact  that  he  came  in  there  and  talked  about  it,  and  that  Mr. 
Henrie,  after  he  had  talked  with  him,  prepared  the  affidavit,  and  then  Mr. 
McCray  brought  them  in?  A.  I do  not  know  how  that  was  fixed. 

Q.  They  were  not  signed  at  the  time  they  brought  them  in  to  Mr.  Henrie? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  one  you  read  written  out  on  the  type-writer  or  in  long-hand? 
A.  It  was  just  a blank  affidavit  and  prepared  — 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  — were  the  dates  in?  A.  Just  the  blank  places  for 
his  name  and  date. 

Q.  The  dates  above  and  below?  A.  All  of  them. 

Q.  Was  there  any  printed  matter  upon  the  affidavit?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  part  was  printed?  A.  It  was  a blank  affidavit;  that  is,  all  the 
printing  that  was  on  it,  and  the  rest  was  filled  in  writing. 

Q.  Was  the  printed  matter  on  it  a letter-head?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  no  part  of  the  affidavit  printed?  A.  I think  not. 

Q.  What  was  the  letter-head?  A.  It  was  not  a letter- head;  it  was  a blank 
affidavit. 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  it  was  a letter-head?  A.  It  was  not  a letter- 
head, no,  sir;  it  was  a blank  affidavit. 

Q.  What  kind  of  paper  was  it  written  on,  if  you  remember?  A.  It  was 
copied  on  paper  something  like  letter-head;  it  was  on  broad,  flat  paper.  m 
Q.  Not  on  legal-cap?  A.  No,  sir;  on  broad,  flat  paper. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  printed  matter  that  was  on  it?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  sure  there  was  some  printed  matter  about  the  affidavit,  are  you? 
A.  Very  few  words. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Sterne  come  over  to  the  office  and  swear  Mr.  Henrie  to  it?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  not  sworn  to  it  in  the  office?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  times  was  the  Governor  in  the  office  to  see  him?  A.  Only 
one  time,  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Is  that  the  gentleman  you  called  the  Governor  (pointing  to  McCray)? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  do  you  say  tha‘t  gentleman  is?  A.  That  is  Mr.  McCray. 

Q.  How  many  times  was  Mr.  McCray  in  the  office  to  see  Mr.  Henrie?  A. 
Only  one  time  when  he  made  his  business  known  to  me. 

Q.  Was  the  Governor  in  the  office  at  any  time  to  see  Mr.  Henrie?  A.  That 
gentleman  never  was  (pointing  to  the  Governor). 


128 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Q.  That  gentleman  is  Governor  Humphrey,  and  you  say  he  was  never  in 
there  to  see  Mr.  Henrie?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  now  that  Mr.  McCray  was  never  in  to  see  Mr.  Henrie  but  once 
about  this  matter?  A.  Not  to  my  knowledge.  He  was  in  twice  the  same  day; 
he  went  out  and  came  back. 

Q.  You  say  your  husband  told  you?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  The  gentleman  that  Mr.  Henrie  told  you  was  Governor  Humphrey  was 
not  him?  A.  Not  this  man  (pointing  to  the  Governor). 

Q.  How  long  were  you  in  the  office  helping  your  husband?  A.  I did  a great 
deal  of  the  work  there  the  greater  part  of  the  summer  of  1889. 

Q.  Were  you  then  married  to  your  husband  at  that  time?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  marry  him  afterward?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  marry  him,, Mrs.  Cougher?  A.  I do  not  remember. 

Q.  Near  as  you  can?  *A.  It  was  the  6th  day  of  October,  1889. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  live  with  him?  A.  Until  the  15th  of  January  or  Feb- 
ruary, 1890. 

Q,  Then  you  only  lived  with  him  about  three  months?  A.  We  were  mar- 
ried, if  I have  to  state  it  all,  and  it  was  not  legal,  and  we  were  married  over 
again. 

Q.  Did  you  live  together  as  husband  and  wife  after  this  first  marriage?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Why  was  not  your  marriage  legal?  A.  Because  the  right  time  had  not 
expired  after  he  had  a divorce  from  his  first  wife. 

Q.  The  six  months  had  not  expired?  A.  No,  sir. 

# Q.  What  was  it  Mr.  McCray  said  about  the  affidavit?  A.  He  says,  “Mr. 
Henrie,  you  will  have  to  sign  these;  it  is  the  only  way  out  of  it  for  us.” 

Q.  This,  you  say,  is  the  affidavit  you  read?  A.  Yes,  sir;  as  near  as  I can 
remember. 

Q.  He  did  not  tell  him  he  would  have  to  sign  both  affidavits?  Was  it  not 
both  to  which  he  referred  when  he  said  he  would  have  to  sign  them?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  talked  over  about  his  being  able  to  get  Mr.  Codding 
to  sign  the  affidavit?  A.  No,  sir;  not  that  I remember. 

Q.  What  was  said  about  the  other  affidavit?  A.  Nothing. 

Q.  Did  you  see  what  purported  to  be  a second  affidavit?  A.  No,  sir;  only 
Mr.  Henrie  said  there  were  two. 

Q.  When  did  he  tell  you  there  were  two  affidavits?  A.  He  said  it  the  next 
morning,  to  Mr.  Cougher;  he  did  not  tell  me. 

Q.  Was  there  a good  deal  of  talking  back  and  forth,  after  the  red  book  was 
published,  by  the  parties  in  the  office?  A.  Yes,  sir. 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT . 


129 


Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  the  Vidette  expose  when  you  were  there? 

A.  I heard  it  talked  of. 

Q.  You  heard  him  say,  did  you  not,  that  he  was  in  the  city  of  Topeka  on 
the  18th  day  of  October,  1888?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  heard  him  say  he  wrote  the  expose  that  was  published?  A.  No,  sir;  0 
I did  not  charge  my  mind  with  it,  I simply  heard  it  talked  of. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  him  tell  anybody  where  he  was  on  the  18th  day  of  Oc- 
tober, 1888?  A.  I do  not  remember  anything  about  dates. 

Q.  Did  he  say  which  of  the  boys  helped  him  drink  up  the  whisky  in  Win- 
field? A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  visiting  the  Vincent  brothers  in  Winfield? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Cougher  your  first  husband?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  times  had  you  been  married  before  you  married  him?  A. 
Once. 

Q.  Who  was  present  when  you  had  the  conversation  with  your  husband  and 
he  told  you  what  was  to  be  done  with  this  box?  A.  Mrs.  and  Mr.  Hoag,  from 
Newton,  were  at  our  house. 

Q.  Were  they  there  when  the  conversation  took  place?  A.  Yes,  sir;  they 
were  right  at  the  table. 

Q.  Who  was  there  when  Henrie  stated  to  your  husband  the  name  of  the  hotel 
he  had  stopped  at  at  Coffeyville?  A.  No  one  but  just  us  three. 

Q.  Mr.  Henrie,  yourself  and  husband?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  there  when  Mr.  McCray  brought  in  the  affidavits?  A.  I was 
there  all  alone  when  he  first  came  down,  and  Mr.  Henrie  came  in  as  third 
party. 

Q.  Anyone  else?  A.  No  one;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  present  when  your  husband  told  Mr.  Henrie  he  did  not  believe 
he  was  going  to  get  a job,  and  Mr.  Henrie  said  they  would  have  to  give  him  a 
job?  A.  Just  us  three. 

Q.  Mr.  Henrie,  yourself  and  husband?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  anybody  else  present  during  any  other  conversation  between  your 
husband  and  yourself  and  Mr.  Henrie,  except  those  two  from  Newton?  A.  At 
one  time  Mr.  Whitley  was. 

Q.  When  was  that?  A.  It  was  in  the  office  one  day  after  this  book  came 
out,  and  the  subject  was  up. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  said  about  it  then?  A.  About  what? 

Q.  About  the  book,  or  about  Mr.  Henrie?  A.  They  were  discussing  the 
subject. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  was  said?  A.  Nothing  in  particular. 


130 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Q.  Who  was  by  when  Mr.  Henrie  said  he  would  swear  to  anything?  A.  No 
one  except  Mr.  Henrie,  Mr.  Cougher,  and  myself. 

By  Mr.  Hendebson:  Q.  I will  ask  you  to  state  to  the  committee  if  you  ever 
heard  any  conversation  between  Mr.  Henrie  and  your  husband,  or  whether 
there  was  any  conversation  between  yourself  and  husband  about  dynamite 
and  its  explosive  powers,  other  than  you  have  already  stated?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  may  now  state  to  the  committee  how  many  children  you  have.  A. 
Four. 

Q.  What  are  their  ages?  A.  One  of  them  is  19,  one  will  be  17  in  May,  one 
12,  and  the  other  10  in  July. 

Q.  Where  are  they  now?  A*.  They  are  all  here  except  one. 

Q.  Which  ones,  designating  them  by  age,  are  now  here?  A.  The  ones  that 
are  19,  12,  and  10. 

Q.  Are  any  of  them  here  in  the  room?  A.  Yes,  sir;  two  of  them.  (Having 
her  children  stand  up.) 

Q.  Where  is  the  other  ? A.  In  Colorado. 

Q.  What  is  he  doing?  A.  Learning  the  jeweler’s  trade. 

Q.  You  state  to  the  committee  that  the  person  pointed  out  to  you  as  Gov- 
rnor  Humphrey  was  not  the  person  who  called  at  the  office  of  Commissioner 
of  Labor;  now  you  may  state  what  description  was  given  of  Governor  Hum- 
phrey to  you  by  Henrie,  at  the  time  you  were  informed  that  the  person 
pointed  out  was  Governor  Humphrey.  A.  He  did  not  give  any  description; 
I asked  Mr.  Henrie,  when  the  gentleman  went  out,  who  he  was,  and  he  said  he 
was  Governor  Humphrey. 

Q.  Describe  that  gentleman  to  the  committee.  A.  He  was  a large  man, 
and  had  a mustache,  and  not  as  old  a man  as  Governor  Humphrey;  that  is 
about  all  that  I noticed. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  William  Higgins,  Secretary  of  State?  A.  No, 
sir. 

The  witness  was  here  excused. 

The  above  is  all  of  Mrs.  Cougher’s  evidence,  except  a few  days  later  (278), 
when  Mr.  Kimball  recalled  her,  and  attempted  to  show  that  she  had  “ padded” 
her  bill  for  expenses  in  attendance  before  the  committee.  In  this  he  signally 
failed,  and  his  abusive  language  toward  her  in  his  report  proves  what  was  sus- 
pected at  the  time  — that  she  was  recalled  for  the  purpose  of  trying  to  dis- 
credit her  testimony,  by  finding  something  crooked  in  her  actions.  A case 
must  be  lame  indeed  that  is  compelled  to  stoop  to  such  methods  in  an  effort 
to  carry  a point. — Ed.] 

But  to  resume: 

“The  affidavit  purporting  to  have  been  made  by  one  J.  W.  French  (178), 
written  and  secured  by  Mr.  C.  Vincent,  is  not  evidence  at  all.  It  was  admitted 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT . 


131 


at  a time  when  two  of  the  Senate  members  of  the  committee  were  not  pres- 
ent, and  even  the  Alliance  chairman  of  the  committee  felt  called  upon  to 
enter  his  protest  against  it.  (367.)  This  affidavit  states  that  Mr.  Henrie  was 
absent,  and  did  not  return  home  until  about  10  or  11  o’clock  p.m.,  of  the  day 
after  the  announcement  of  the  explosion  in  the  daily  papers.  As  the  explo- 
sion happened  about  half-past  4 o’clock  p.m.  of  the  18th,  it  is  plain  that  the 
meaning  of  the  language  used  in  the  affidavit  is;  that  he  did  not  return  home 
before  late  in  the  evening  of  the  19th.  This  is  expressly  contradicted  by 
Judge  Reed’s  records,  which  show  that  Mr.  Henrie  registered  in  Topeka  as  a 
voter,  on  the  19th.  (482.)  Mr.  J.  W.  French,  if  he  made  this  affidavit  at  all,  is 
further  contradicted  by  his  daughter  — so  said  to  be  in  his  affidavit  — who 
swears  that  Mr.  Henrie  was  in  Topeka  on  the  18th,  19th,  and  until  the  23d  of 
October  (495),  by  all  of  the  witnesses  who  testified  as  to  Mr.  Henrie’s  where- 
abouts at  that  time.  Other  matters  are  stated  in  this  affidavit,  seemingly  for 
the  purpose  of  downing  Mr.  Henrie,  but  they  are  contradicted  by  other  wit- 
nesses. The  most  that  could  be  claimed  for  French’s  affidavit  would  be,  to 
allow  it  to  offset  the  affidavit  of  his  daughter,  and  even  this  would  be  allowing 
too  much,  as  Mrs.  Barlow  is  corroborated  by  half  a dozen  witnesses,  while  the 
French  affidavit  stands  alone.” 

[ The  first  sentence  above  shows  that  Mr.  Kimball  seeks  to  throw  a suspicion 
over  the  genuineness  of  this  affidavit.  He  also  says  that  Chairman  Carey  pro- 
tested against  its  admission,  and  refers  to  page  367  of  the  record  in  proof. 
Page  367  contains  a portion  of  Mr.  Clifford’s  evidence,  and  the  affidavit  in 
question  is  not  mentioned  there  at  all.  The  affidavit  appears  on  page  178,  at 
top  of  which  occurs  the  following  record  — 

“Mr.  Carey  (chairman)  said  he  would  be  in  favor  of  allowing  the  affidavit 
to  be  received  in  evidence.” 

Three  affidavits  of  absent  persons  were  presented — Edwin  French  (178), 
Lucy  H.  Barlow  (495),  and  John  F.  Cummings  (448)  — the  last  two  by  the  Re- 
publicans, the  former  by  the  People.  That  of  Cummings  is  a confessed  false- 
hood. (See  Smith’s  evidence  (240);  also  this  volume,  p.  113.)  That  of  Mrs. 
Barlow  was  secured  under  very  suspicious  circumstances.  (See  this  volume, 
p.  115;  also  Judge  Webb’s  letter,  p.  171.)  That  of  Mr.  French  has  never  been 
called  in  question,  except  by  the  implied  insinuation  of  the  Senator.  The 
apparent  conflict  between  it  and  Judge  Reed’s  evidence  is  easily  accounted 
for,  by  the  fact  that  just  before  election,  during  the  last  days  of  registration, 
the  clerk’s  office  is  open  till  late  at  night,  to  accommodate  those  who  cannot 
appear  in  business  hours.  Nothing  shows  at  what  hour  Henrie  registered, 
and  it  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  surrounding  circumstances  to  suppose, 
that  on  his  return  from  Coffey ville  he  registered  and  took  a lunch  before  go- 
ing to  his  home,  west  of  Kansas  avenue,  where  the  French  affidavit  says  he 
arrived  about  10  or  11  o’clock.  The  Senator  also  says  that  this  affidavit  is 
contradicted  by  Mrs.  Barlow’s.  On  the  contrary,  this  affidavit  contradicts  that 
of  Mrs.  Barlow,  her’s  having  been  made  and  published  first.  Mr.  French  nat- 


132 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


urally  hesitated  about  denying  the  truthfulness  of  his  own  daughter’s  tes- 
timony; but  after  mature  deliberation,  and  several  days’  consideration,  he 
decided  that  she  was  mistaken  or  imposed  upon,  (the  results  being  the  same 
in  either  case,)  and  only  in  the  interest  of  the  public  welfare  did  he  make 
known  the  facts  as  stated  in  the  affidavit.  There  were  present  with  him  at 
the  time  as  witnesses,  in  Dr.  Campbell’s  office,  at  Mound  City,  Kansas,  Dr. 
Campbell,  John  C.  Cannon  (notary),  Geo.  H.  Townsley,  editor  of  Torch  of 
Liberty,  and  C.  Vincent,  of  Winfield.  The  affidavit  was  written  at  his  dicta- 
tion, and  read  to  him  a second  time  ( he  not  having  his  spectacles  with  him) 
before  he  signed  it  in  the  presence  of  the  above  witnesses. 

On  page  600  of  the  record  is  found  testimony  that  an  unsuccessful  effort 
had  been  made  to  find  Mr.  Frenoh,  that  he  might  appear  personally  before 
the  committee.  No  record  appears  that  the  Republicans  made  any  effort  to 
secure  the  attendance  of  either  Mrs.  Barlow  or  J.  F.  Cummings. — Ed.] 

“We  have  stated  the  substance  of  all  the  testimony  bearing  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  Mr.  Henrie’s  whereabouts  on  the  18th  day  of  October,  1888,  and,  we 
ask,  where  is  there  any  evidence  showing,  or  tending  to  show,  that  he  was  in 
Coffey ville,  or  was  not  in  Topeka,  on  that  day?  If  all  the  evidence  showing 
that  he  was  in  Topeka  on  that  day  was  stricken  out,  there  would  not  then  be 
any  legal  evidence  from  which  any  unprejudiced  court  or  tribunal  could  find 
that  he  was  in  Coffeyville  on  that  day. 

“Mr.  Henrie  was  an  employe  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee 
during  a considerable  portion  of  the  campaign  of  1888,  getting  up  the  expose 
and  performing  other  services.  Proof  that  he  was  the  man  who  left  the  box 
at  Coffeyville  is  the  only  possible  foundation  upon  which  the  Alliance  mem- 
bers can  base  their  findings  that  the  Republican  party,  or  other  Republicans 
who  have  been  named,  were  in  any  way  connected  with  or  accessory  to  the 
crime.  Failing  to  prove  that,  their  whole  fabric  of  baseless  conclusions,  in- 
ferences and  insinuations  falls  of  its  own  weight. 

“2d.  We  have  already  found,  generally,  that  Mr.  C.  A.  Henrie  was  not  in 
any  way  implicated  in  the  Coffeyville  explosion  and  had  no  connection  with 
it,  and  that  his  appointment  to  a clerkship  in  the  Bureau  of  Labor  was  not 
given  him  as  a reward  for  any  connection  or  supposed  connection  which  he 
had  therewith,  or  to  prevent  him  from  telling  what,  if  anything,  he  knew 
about  it.  In  view  of  the  extraordinary  circumstances  under  which  this  re- 
port is  prepared,  and  which  will  be  more  fully  referred  to  hereafter,  it  has 
been  thought  best  to  answer  from  the  testimony  this  question:  Why  did  the 
Governor  recommend  or  assent  to  the  employment  of  Mr.  Henrie  as  a clerk 
in  that  bureau? 

“Matters  have  occurred  which  indicate  to  us  that  there  are  members  of  this 
committee  who  will  refuse  to  see  the  plain  and  natural  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion, and  will  seek  to  account  for  his  appointment  upon  some  theory  consist- 
ent only  with  the  suspicions  and  prejudices  which  they  entertain.  To  us  the 
answer  is  plain,  natural,  fully  shown  by  the  evidence,  and  is  simply  this:  He 
was  employed  as  a clerk  there  because  of  his  fitness  for  the  place,  because  he 
was  recommended  by  Mr.  Bion  S.  Hutchins,  who  had  occupied  a prominent 
position  in  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party  during  the  campaign 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


133 


(529,  530),  and  others  (520),  and  in  recognition  of  services  which  he  had  per- 
formed for  the  Republican  party. 

“It  should  be  remembered,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  position  is  not  one  of 
great  importance;  it  is  simply  a clerkship  in  one  of  the  departments  of  the 
State,  at  $800  per  year.  Mr.  Henrie  had  been  the  editor  and  publisher  of  a 
newspaper  devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  wage-earners;  he  had  made  a 
special  study  of  the  various  phases  of  the  work  of  the  bureau  in  which  he 
sought  a position;  he  had  filled  a similar  position  as  a State  officer  for  a 
labor  organization  (a  collector  of  statistics  for  the  Knights  of  Labor  State 
Assembly);  he  had  actively  favored  the  establishment  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor, 
had  been  looked  upon  as  an  efficient  and  valuable  man  in  that  department,  and 
had  been  mentioned  as  such  in  the  various  reports  of  the  commissioner. 
This  is  shown  by  Mr.  Betton’s  letter  to  Greer,  published  in  the  Winfield 
Courier , of  September  9th,  1889,  and  by  other  evidence.  The  copy  of  the 
paper  referred  to  is  the  same  in  which  certain  other  correspondence  intro- 
duced in  evidence  is  found.  (57.)  At  the  time  Mr.  Henrie  was  appointed,  he 
was  a member  and  officer  of  the  Knights  of  Labor,  both  local  and  State  bodies; 
the  Typographical  Union,  and  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  (588,  589.) 
The  fact  that  in  the  year  1889,  without  charges,  a trial,  or  a chance  to  defend 
himself,  he  was  expelled  from  the  Knights  of  Labor,  for  alleged  non-payment 
of  dues,  and  complicity  in  the  Coffeyville  affair,  should  not  count  against  him. 
It  is  quite  likely  that  this  action  was  the  result  of  the  baseless  charges  con- 
stantly made,  and  reiterated  in  the  Nonconformist  and  other  papers. 

“Mr.  Henrie  was  recommended  for  employment  by  such  men  as  the  late 
Governor  John  A.  Martin,  Hon.  P.  I.  Bonebrake,  formerly  chairman  of  the 
Republican  State  Central  Committee,  Major  J.  K.  Hudson,  editor  of  the  To- 
peka Capital , Mayor  D.  C.  Metsker,  of  Topeka,  and  other  prominent  Repub- 
licans. (520.)  The  services  which  he  had  rendered  the  Republican  party  were 
considered  valuable  (520,  etseq .);  and,  his  paper  not  having  proved  a financial 
success,  it  was  not  only  natural,  but  proper  that  he  should  be  given  a position 
in  a department,  the  duties  of  which  he  was  best  fitted  to  perform. 

“An  attempt  was  made  to  prove  that  Mr.  Henrie  was  an  anarchist,  and  cer- 
tain testimony  was  introduced  for  that  purpose.  It  was  shown  that  Mr.  Henrie 
participated  in  a public  meeting  addressed  by  the  anarchist  Parsons,  when 
he  was  in  Topeka,  and  was  otherwise  associated  with  him.  ( Testimony  of  J. 
W.  Whitley,  179;  and  C.  S.  Whitted,  182.)  It  seems  from  this  testimony  that 
at  that  time,  in  the  year  1885  (179,  183),  Parsons  was  at  Topeka  organizing  a 
branch  of  the  International  Working  People’s  Association.  Mr.  Henrie,  being 
an  active  man  in  nearly  all  the  movements  in  the  interest,  or  supposed  to  be 
in  the  interests,  of  the  laboring  classes,  assisted  in  this  organization,  and  was, 
as  a consequence,  associated  with  Parsons.  Mr.  Whitted  testified  that  at  a 
private  meeting  held  at  Mr.  Whitley’s  house,  he  (Whitted)  or  some  one  whom 
he  does  not  remember,  asked  Mr.  Parsons  to  tell  them  how  to  make  dynamite, 
and  that  the  latter  did  so,  and  that  it  was  suggested  that  he,  being  a gas-fitter, 
could  make  the  bombs.  ( 191.)  He  says  that  Mr.  Henrie  was  present  at  that 
meeting;  but  Mr.  Whitley,  another  witness  called  for  the  same  purpose,  and 
who  was  present  at  this  same  gathering,  gives  the  names  of  those  present  at  the 
time  the  conversation  was  upon  the  subject  of  dynamite,  and  says  Mr.  Henrie 
was  not  there.  (181.)  And  the  latter  denies  being  present  at  any  meeting 
where  that  subject  was  talked  about.  Certain  articles  in  relation  to  the  exe- 
cution of  the  Chicago  anarchists,  published  in  Mr.  Henrie’s  paper,  the  Labor 

—8 


134 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Chieftain , were  also  introduced  in  evidence  for  the  purpose  of  showing  his 
sentiments  and  tendencies.  (183.)  The  articles  referred  to  are  mostly  special 
dispatches,  giving  the  full  text  of  Governor  Oglesby’s  decision,  and  an  account 
of  the  execution  of  the  condemned  anarchists.  Attention  is  called  to  the  cool, 
temperate  tone  of  these  articles,  as  compared  with  the  articles  before  quoted 
from  the  Non- Conformist.” 

[The  Senator  should  have  said  “garbled”  instead  of  “quoted.”  Compare 
quotation  with  p.  593  of  the  record. — Ed.] 

“Some  of  the  members  of  this  committee  are  inclined  to  attach  some  im- 
portance to  the  language  which  Leland  J.  Webb  testified  that  the  Governor 
used  in  a conversation  in  which  he  was  asked  to  prepare  some  affidavits  for 
Henrie  and  others  in  regard  to  this  matter.  The  credibility  of  this  witness 
was  seriously  impaired  by  his  action,  shown  by  other  testimony,  in  attemp- 
ting to  trade  his  testimony,  or  rather  the  withholding  of  his  testimony,  for  a 
promise  that  a certain  appointment  should  be  made,  and  by  the  feeling  of 
animosity  which  he  evidently  entertained  at  the  time  he  was  testifying,  and 
which  was  but  poorly  concealed  by  a pretense  of  candor  and  fairness.  He  ad- 
mitted that  he  had  unpleasant  feelings  towards  the  Governor,  as  well  as  to- 
wards Mr.  Henrie.  He  wanted  another  man  appointed  to  the  position  given 
to  Mr.  Henrie.  He  was  mad  about  this  and  other  matters.  (287.)  Mr.  Henrie 
had  given  him,  Webb,  a “roasting”  in  his  paper,  and  for  that  and  other  rea- 
sons he  did  not  like  him.  (288.)  That  Mr.  Webb  was  a party  to  this  attempt 
to  trade  upon*  his  testimony,  is  shown  by  the  testimony  of  Judge  Reed  (478- 
482),  and  of  Mr.  Evans.  (484.)  He  kept  out  of  the  way  and  made  a pretense 
of  sickness  (479),  and  said  he  would,  if  necessary,  take  a train  and  go  away, 
(484),  until  he  found  that  the  appointment  could  not  be  secured  in  that  way, 
and  then  he  was  swift  to  appear  and  testify.  So  anxious,  indeed,  was  he  after 
he  found  that  the  Governor  would  make  no  trade  with  him,  that  he  said  he 
‘had  rather  lose  $500  than  to  fail  to  testify  in  the  case.’  (Judge  Reed’s  testi- 
mony, 491.)  He  then  appeared  as  a witness  and  endeavored,  no  doubt,  to 
carry  out  his  promise  to  ‘make  it  hot  for  the  Governor.’  (484.) 

“Testimony  as  to  what  was  said  in  a given  conversation  is  always  uncertain. 
Two  witnesses  will  hardly  ever  tell  it  alike.  The  change  or  omission  of  a word 
frequently  changes  the  meaning  of  a sentence.  Omitting  or  forgetting  a part 
may  change  the  tenor  and  meaning  of  the  entire  conversation.  Taking  all 
these  matters  into  consideration,  with  the  evident  desire  on  the  part  of  this 
witness  to  carry  out,  so  far  as  he  was  able,  the  high  and  sounding  phrase  of 
his  manifesto,  as  to  what  he  would  do  if  the  Governor  did  not  make  matters 
satisfactory  to  him,  and  it  is  plain  that  his  testimony  affords  no  basis  for 
any  finding  or  conclusion  against  the  innocence  or  good  motives  of  anyone.” 

[In  this  effort  to  explain  why  Henrie  was  appointed,  Mr.  Kimball  displays 
to  excellent  advantage  all  his  fertility  of  imagination  and  ability  to  “garble” 
the  record.  It  is  stated  that  he  had  rendered  “important  services  to  the  Re- 
publican party.”  (520.)  It  is  also  admitted  that  he  published  a paper  op- 
posed to  that  party.  (183.)  These  two  things  are  inconsistent  upon  any 
other  theory  than  that  he  was  a spy  in  the  ranks  of  labor  and  secretly  work- 
ing for  the  Republicans,  and  his  reward  proves  this  theory. 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


135 


Following  is  a copy  of  the  resolutions  expelling  him  from  the  Knights  of 
Labor: 

“ Resolved , That  it  is  the  sense  of  the  Kansas  State  Assembly  of  the  Order  of  Knights  of  La- 
bor, in  regular  annual  session  assembled,  in  the  city  of  Leavenworth,  on  Tuesday,  August  6, 
1889,  that  a former  member  of  this  order,  by  name  and  residence  C.  A.  Henrie,  of  Topeka,  Kan- 
sas, has  forfeited  every  right  and  title  to  membership  to  this  order. 

“First:  By  his  sentiment  and  methods  for  more  than  a year  last  past,  as  charged,  without 
contradiction  by  members  of  the  order,  and  as  widely  and  notoriously  published  in  the  current 
literature  of  the  country. 

“Second:  By  the  non-resentment  and  non-contradiction  of  the  oft-repeated  and  long  and 
widely-published  charge  that  he  was  criminally  connected  with  a murderous  explosion  of  dy- 
namite at  Coffeyville,  Kansas,  in  the  month  of  October,  1888. 

“Third : By  his  utter  neglect  to  meet  his  financial  obligations  to  the  order,  or  to  keep  his 
promises  respecting  such  obligations,  since  January  1,  1888,  a period  of  over  nineteen  months. 
Therefore,  be  it 

“ Resolved , That  the  said  C.  A.  Henrie  is  not  rightfully  or  legally  a member  of  this  order,  and 
has  not  been  so  considered  by  Knights  who  know  him  best  for  many  months  past. 

(See  also  p.  164,  this  volume,  for  a review  of  Henrie’s  characteristics.) 

The  “attempt”  was  not  only  “made”  to  prove  Henrie  an  anarchist,  but  it 
was  successfully  attempted  by  the  testimony  of  Whitley  and  Whitted,  as  well 
as  by  the  fact  that  it  was  one  of  the  reasons  given  for  his  expulsion  from  the 
Knights  of  Labor.  Pages  588  and  589  are  referred  to  to  show  that  Henrie 
belonged  to  the  Knights  of  Labor,  the  Typographical  Union,  and  American 
Federation  of  Labor.  These  pages  contain  the  record  of  his  expulsion  from 
the  Knights  of  Labor,  but  no  reference  occurs  there  to  either  of  the  other  organ- 
izations named.  The  attempt  to  discredit  the  evidence  of  L.  J.  Webb  will 
fail  of  the  accomplishment  of  its  purpose.  His  alleged  willingness  to  place 
himself  beyond  the  reach  of  a subpena,  provided  Governor  Humphrey  would 
make  a certain  appointment,  is  not  commended  nor  defended  in  any  way; 
but  we  may  observe  that  there  is  a serious  doubt  that  he  ever  expressed  such 
a determination,  because  the  appointment  he  is  alleged  to  have  desired  was 
not  sought  for  nor  wished  for  by  the  alleged  intended  recipient  of  the  office. 

Observe  again  the  “garbling”  of  Senator  Kimball  in  the  use  of  quotation 
marks  around  the  words  above  — “make  it  hot  for  the  Governor.”  (484.) 

By  reference  to  484,  we  find  the  following  record: 

Q.  Didn’t  he  say  he  would  make  it  hot  for  the  Governor?  A.  He  may  have 
said  something  like  that. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  your  best  recollection  about  that?  A.  Well,  I think  he  said 
he  would  make  it  hot  for  him;  not  perhaps  quite  in  that  language,  but  that 
in  substance. 

Mr.  Geo.  H.  Evans  was  on  the  stand  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  the  strength 
of  Webb’s  evidence,  by  trying  to  show  a feeling  of  resentment  on  his  part 
toward  the  Governor.  The  attorney  (Dawes)  put  words  in  the  mouth  of  this 
willing  witness,  which,  being  assented  to,  are  next  quoted  by  Senator  Kimball 
as  the  words  of  another  party;  and  yet  he  charges  others  with  “garbling”  the 
evidence  in  a report  not  yet  made  public.  (617;  also,  p.  110,  this  volume.) 


136 


POPULIST  BAND-BOOK. 


Was  this  because  he  knew  he  must  “garble”  to  support  his  own  case,  that  he 
was  so  ready  to  assume  that  others  would  also  distort  the  facts? — Ed.] 

“3d.  The  charge  is  recited  in  the  resolutions,  that  this  alleged  crime,  the  ex- 
plosion, has  not  been  investigated  in  the  courts,  by  reason  of  the  refusal  of 
certain  officers  to  perform  their  sworn  duties;  and  this  charge  we  have  found 
to  be  untrue. 

“It  may  be  proper  to  state  some  of  the  reasons  which  impel  us  to  this  con- 
clusion, and  to  refer  to  the  evidence  bearing  upon  the  question.  So  far  as 
this  charge  has  been  referred  to  by  anyone  in  this  investigation,  it  seems  to 
have  been  directed  at  Mr.  Samuel  C.  Elliott  and  Mr.  O.  P.  Ergenbright,  county 
attorneys  of  Montgomery  county;  the  former  at  the  time  of  the  explosion 
and  until  in  January  following,  and  the  latter  succeeding  him  in  that  office. 
In  ordinary  cases,  where  the  prosecution  of  a criminal  fails,  the  county  has 
the  costs  and  expenses  to  pay.  The  Legislature  appropriated  $12,000  to  pay 
the  expenses  of  this  investigation,  which  does  not  include  the  cost  of  printing 
the  testimony,  etc.  The  witnesses  brought  before  this  committee  were' only 
allowed  five  cents  per  mile,  whereas  in  criminal  cases  they  are  allowed  twice 
that.  A trial  of  the  same  question  in  the  courts  of  Montgomery  county  would 
cost  a large  sum  of  money.  The  county  attorney  who  would  not,  under  the 
circumstances,  investigate  the  matter,  ascertain  what  the  evidence  was,  so  as 
to  be  reasonably  sure  of  a conviction  before  allowing  a prosecution  to  be 
brought,  would  be  unworthy  to  hold  the  office.  It  is  as  much  the  duty  of  a 
county  attorney  to  protect -the  tax-payers  of  the  county  from  the  costs  and 
expense  of  improvident  or  ill-founded  prosecutions,  as  it  is  to  prosecute  those 
cases  where  the  proper  evidence  of  guilt  is  presented  to  him.  Now  what  does 
the  evidence  bearing  upon  the  question  show?  It  seems  that  I.  D.  Highley- 
man,  the  so-called  detective,  and  0.  [H.]  Vincent  went  to  Mr.  Elliott,  and  after- 
wards to  his  successor,  Mr.  Ergenbright,  and  asked  to  have  George  W.  Poorman 
and  C.  A.  Henrie  arrested  and  prosecuted.  To  shorten  this  review  of  the  tes- 
timony, we  shall  refer  to  the  county  attorney  without  specifying  whether  it 
was  Mr.  Elliott  or  Mr.  Ergenbright  who  filled  the  office  at  the  time.  Mr. 
Highleyman  says  that  the  county  attorney  wanted  to  know  what  evidence 
they  had  of  the  guilt  of  these  parties,  and  he  and  Mr.  V incent  told  him  (243, 245) ; 
but  when  asked  to  tell  what  the  evidence  was,  says  that  it  was  the  evidence  of 
Wm.  Drugan  and  George  W.  Poorman.  (245.)  And  when  pressed  on  cross- 
examination  to  tell  just  what  was  said  to  the  county  attorney  about  the  evi- 
dence, he  says  in  substance  that  he  told  the  county  attorney  that  he  knew  Mr. 
Poorman  and  had  had  some  correspondence  with  a man  at  his  home  (Bellaire, 
Ohio),  and  that  this  man  had  written  him  that  a man  named  Henrie  was  get- 
ting his  mail  there  through  Poorman’s  wife,  and  if  Poorman  and  Henrie  were 
arrested,  the  latter  would  squeal  and  tell  all  he  knew  about  it.  (249.)  This 
would  indeed  be  strong  proof  upon  which  to  institute  proceedings,  that  would 
in  the  end  cost  thousands  of  dollars;  and  it  appears,  too,  that  Mr.  Highley- 
man was  working  for  himself.  He  wanted  to  be  employed  to  go  to  Ohio  and 
bring  Poorman  back  at  the  rate  of  ten  cents  a mile  and  expenses  going  and 
returning.  (See  testimony  of  Elliott,  49.)  Mr.  Henrie  was  here  in  Kansas  at 
that  time,  his  whereabouts  being  well  known;  and  Mr.  Poorman  has  since 
come  here  voluntarily,  and  has  told  all  he  knows  about  the  matter.  (328.) 
The  testimony  of  Mr.  Highleyman,  the  letters  he  received  from  Drugan  (253), 
and  the  testimony  of  Drugan’s  associate,  McCormack,  brought  here  from  Ohio 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


137 


as  a witness  at  the  instance  of  the  Vincents,  and  who  knew  absolutely  nothing 
about  the  matter  except  some  rumors  and  hearsay  statements,  show  what  folly 
it  would  be  for  a county  attorney  to  institute  a prosecution  based  upon  state- 
ments of  these  “tin  horn”  (282)  detectives.  The  testimony  of  Mr.  Henry  Vin- 
cent, as  to  what  occurred  at  these  several  interviews  with  the  county  attorney, 
is  in  harmony  with  that  of  Mr.  Highleyman.  (266.)  So  far  as  his  testimony 
shows,  he  referred  to  no  other  evidence  on  which  to  base  a prosecution  than 
that  named  by  Mr.  Highleyman.  We  have  purposely  referred  only  to  that 
part  of  the  testimony  offered  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  these  county 
attorneys  have  been  derelict  in  their  duty.  That  testimony  is  of  itself  suffi- 
cient to  vindicate  them.  There  seems  to  be  good  grounds  for  the  opinion 
expressed  by  Mr.  Elliott,  that  under  our  statute  — unless  there  was  evidence 
to  show  that  the  explosive  was  delivered  with  intent  to  harm  some  person  — 
no  prosecution  could  be  maintained,  even  if  the  person  who  delivered  it  was 
known.  The  testimony  of  both  Mr.  Elliott  (48)  and  Mr.  Ergenbright  (53) 
should  be  read  in  this  connection. 

“To  sum  up  this  whole  matter,  each  of  these  county  attorneys  was  expected 
to  institute  a prosecution  that  would  have  cost  Montgomery  county  thousands 
of  dollars,  upon  the  unverified  statements  of  a man  in  Ohio  that  he  had  heard 
that  George  W.  Poorman’s  wife  had  been  getting  mail  for  Mr.  Henrie,  and 
that  he  believed  that  if  Poorman  was  arrested  he  would  squeal.  And  because 
they  declined  to  institute  a prosecution  on  such  evidence  they  are  to  be  pub- 
licly charged,  and  investigated  by  the  Legislature  for  refusing  to  perform 
their  duties.  The  wisdom  of  the  Legislature  in  changing  the  law  exempting 
a county  from  liability  for  costs,  except  in  those  cases  where  the  county  at- 
torney approves  of  the  prosecution,  is  apparent.” 

[The  strained  effort  to  justify  non-action  on  the  part  of  the  county  attor- 
neys may  pass  for  what  it  is  worth,  but  the  public  will  remember  that  much 
more  circumstancial  evidence  existed  against  the  Republican  committees  than 
existed  against  the  Cronin  conspirators  in  Chicago  at  the  time  of  their  arrest; 
but  the  masterly  inactivity  of  all  Republican  officials  allowed  this  case  to  go 
by  default^  and  more,  the  Legislature  of  1889  passed  two  laws,  the  effect  of 
which  was  to  impede  the  prosecution  of  this  case.  (See  Senate  Jour.  1889, 
pp.  471,  865,  “An  act  to  Abolish  Grand  Juries,”  introduced  eighth  day  of  the 
session,  by  Senator  Schilling;  also,  chapter  128,  Session  Laws  1889,  bill  intro- 
duced by  J.  B.  Zeigler,  of  Montgomery  county.) 

It  is  conceded  that  the  presence  of  McCormack  did  not  aid  the  prosecution, 
but  that  could  not  be  ascertained  in  advance.  Correspondence  with  Drugan 
indicated  that  some  valuable  information  might  be  obtained  by  securing  their 
presence.  Drugan  was  sick,  and  the  prosecution  failed  to  establish  what  was 
aimed  at  by  summoning  these  parties.  We  may  add  here,  by  way  of  variety, 
that  this  is  the  only  exception.  On  every  other  point,  the  prosecution  satis- 
fied honest  people,  committee  and  visitors  of  the  invulnerability  of  the  posi- 
tions assumed. — Ed.] 

“4th.  We  find  that  it  is  not  true  that  Volney  A.  Beard  ever  overheard  a 
conversation  between  E.  P.  Greer  and  Sol.  Burkhalter  in  substance  like  that 


138 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


stated  by  him  in  his  testimony  (126,  130);  or  that  he  ever  heard  any  conver- 
sation between  them  which  in  any  way  referred  to  the  shipment  or  delivery 
of  any  package  — dangerous  or  otherwise. 

“As  to  whether  Mr.  Beard  was  honestly  mistaken  — whether  he  had  at  some 
time  overheard  some  fragments  of  a conversation  between  those  men  as  to  the 
coming  expose,  to  which  a suspicious  nature,  which  usually  accompanies  a low 
order  of  intellect,  had  added  things  never  said,  and  a meaning  never  intended 
— or  whether  this  witness  committed  willful  perjury,  we  leave  for  those  who 
read  the  testimony  to  determine  for  themselves.  Mr.  Beard  is  a small  man, 
with  but  little  room  for  brains  in  his  head,  and  his  manner  upon  the  stand 
was  not  such  as  to  impress  one  with  his  candor  and  truthfulness.  He  kept  a 
stand  where  lunch,  lemonade,  etc.,  were  sold  in  Winfield,  and  there  went  by  the 
name  of  “Peanuts,”  or  “Peanut  Jack.”  (299.)  His  stand  was  next  door  to 
Hendricks  & Wilson’s  hardware  store.  He  says  the  conversation  occurred 
about  11  or  12  o’clock  at  night;  that  they,  Greer  and  Burkhalter,  were  sitting 
outside  of  his  store,  the  former  on  a wheelbarrow  and  the  latter  on  a box,  and 
he  was  inside  waiting  on  some  customers;  that  there  was  a wall  between  them; 
that  he  was  hard  of  hearing,  and  they  talked  very  low  (129),  and  that  he  could 
not  hear  all  they  said.  (127.)  In  one  part  of  his  examination  he  was  fairly 
asked  to  state  the  name  of  the  person  he  first  told  about  this  conversation, 
and  in  reply  he  said  he  told  Geo.  Applegate  first  and  a Mr.  Wilkinson  about  a 
year  afterward.  (127.)  Subsequently  he  was  recalled  and  asked  the  same 
question,  and  he  then  swore  that  Jim  Connor,  the  sheriff,  was  the  first  person 
he  told  about  it  (139);  and  when  asked  his  reasons  for  this  contradiction  in 
his  testimony,  did  not  say  it  was  a mistake,  or  that  he  had  forgotten,  but  with 
a cunning  leer,  which  those  who  saw  him  will  remember,  said  that  he  told 
them  they  were  trying  to  draw  him  out,  etc.  (140.)  Who  he  first  told  about 
this  alleged  conversation  is  unimportant,  but  whether  this  witness  deliberately 
perjured  himself  to  keep  from  being  drawn  out  is  an  important  consideration. 
The  unprejudiced  person  who  heard  this  testimony  would  be  impressed  with 
the  fact  that  the  witness  knew  he  was  not  swearing  to  the  truth  when  he  said 
that  George  Applegate  was  the  first  person  he  told  about  it. 

“There  was  an  attempt  made  to  support  this  witness  by  calling  Messrs.  Ap- 
plegate and  Wilkinson  to  testify  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Beard  did  tell  them  of 
the  conversation;  but  such  testimony  is  worse  than  hearsay.  One  does  not 
have  to  be  a lawyer  to  know  that  a witness  cannot  add  to  the  weight  of  his 
testimony  by  telling  his  story  to  others,  and  then  having  them  swear  to  the 
fact  that  he  did  tell  them;  and  that  such  testimony  would  not  be  received  in 
any  court. 

“Testimony  showing  contradictory  statements  is  properly  received  for  the 
purpose  of  impeaching  or  discrediting  a witness.  The  testimony  of  Mr.  Con- 
nor should  therefore  be  considered  as  bearing  upon  the  credibility  of  Mr. 
Beard’s  story.  Mr.  Connor  testified  that  when  Mr.  Beard  told  the  story  to 
him  he  said  that  he  heard  Mr.  Greer  say,  ‘Didn’t  we  shoot  it  into  them?’  to 
which  Mr.  Burkhalter  replied,  ‘Yes,  we  did!’  whereupon  Mr.  Greer  said,  ‘You 
wait  awhile,  and  you  will  see  a worse  bomb  than  that  fired  into  them.’  Mr. 
Connor  was  at  that  time  a member  of  the  Union  Labor  party,  and  the  sheriff 
of  that  county.  The  story  was  told  to  him  by  Mr.  Beard,  as  a basis  for  offi- 
cial action  on  his  part.  He  says  he  did  investigate  the  matter,  and  became 
convinced  that  the  language  referred  to  the  expose  of  the  Yidettes,  and  had 
po  reference  to  the  explosion  at  Coffeyville.  (391.)  The  attempt  that  was 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


139 


made  to  corroborate  Mr.  Beard’s  testimony  was  an  entire  failure.  J.  W.  Car- 
ter, one  of  the  witnesses  brought  before  the  committee  for  that  purpose,  tes- 
tified that  he  was  a constitutional  loafer,  and  had  frequently  seen  and  sat  in 
a wheelbarrow  in  front  of  the  adjoining  hardware  store.  (577.)  J.  W.  Curf- 
man’s  testimony  was  to  the  same  effect.  (578.)  And  E.  B.  Emory  testified 
that  he  saw  Mr.  Greer  in  at  Mr.  Beard’s  place  eating  a lunch  one  night  about 
the  9th,  10th  or  11th  of  October.  (579.)  Proof  that  there  was  a wheelbarrow 
there,  and  that  Mr.  Greer  once  ate  a lunch  at  Mr.  Beard’s  place,  is  no  corrob- 
oration of  the  latter’s  testimony  as  to  the  conversation.  Thus  it  will  be  seen 
that  Mr.  Beard's  story  not  only  stands  alone  and  uncorroborated,  but  with 
its  credibility,  to  say  the  least,  very  seriously  impaired  by  his  contradictory 
statements. 

“On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Greer  (428,  429)  and  Mr.  Burkhalter  (295)  both 
positively  deny  that  any  such  conversation  ever  took  place;  and  there  is 
nothing  in  the  testimony  before  this  committee  which  in  any  way  impairs 
the  credit  which  should  be  given  to  their  statements.  The  general  findings 
made  by  us,  exonerating  Mr.  Greer  from  any  and  all  complicity  in  the  Cof- 
feyville  explosion,  as  well  as  the  special  finding  as  to  this  conversation  with 
Mr.  Beard,  are  based  upon  all  the  evidence  before  the  committee,  as  well  as 
upon  that  to  which  special  reference  has  been  made.” 

[The  testimony  of  Mr.  Beard  is  quite  voluminous,  and  would  occupy  about 
fifteen  pages  of  this  volume,  hence  we  omit  nearly  all  of  it;  though  we  wish 
as  many  as  can  do  so  would  secure  the  record  and  read  it  all.  It  fell  on  the 
Republicans  as  unexpectedly  and  suddenly  as  thunder  from  a clear  sky.  Mr. 
Beard  is  of  a non-combative  nature,  and  when  he  first  heard  the  following  con- 
versation between  Greer  and  Burkhalter  (126),  he  kept  still  for  some  days. 

Q.  Tell  all  you  heard.  A.  Well,  about  11  o’clock,  or  a few  minutes  after, 
Sol.  Burkhalter  came  there  and  stopped  another  man  talking  with  Mr.  Greer, 
and  Mr.  Burkhalter  said:  “Ed.,  I hear  you  are  onto  them?”  He  says,  “Yes, 
you  bet  I am.”  He  says,  “Ed.,  my  God,  that  is  awfully  dangerous.”  He  said, 
“No,  sir;  not  at  all.”  “Well,”  he  says,  “how  are  you  going  to  fix  it?”  And 
he  said,  “I  am  going  to  have  an  officer  there  when  the  package  is  delivered.” 

Q.  What  else  was  said,  if  you  remember?  A.  Well,  I cannot  say  all  that  Mr. 
Greer  said;  it  was  very  low  and  I did  not  hear  it  all.  Burkhalter  said  in  re- 
gard to  the  dangerous  part  of  it,  that  there  were  a lot  of  women  and  girls 
there,  and  he  would  hate  to  see  them  hurt. 

Q.  A lot  of  women  where,  did  he  say?  A.  I do  not  know.  Some  office,  I 
think. 

When  he  first  heard  this,  he  did  not  pay  very  much  attention  to  it,  but 
when  a few  days  later  the  explosion  occurred  at  Coffeyville,  he  naturally  con- 
nected the  two  together.  He  told  Sheriff  Connor,  who,  for  some  unexplained 
reason,  told  him  to  keep  still  about  it.  He  did  so,  until  overhearing  a caustic 
remark  by  J.  A.  Cooper  (chairman  Republican  county  committee),  addressed 
to  Geo.  Applegate,  calling  the  Nonconformist  a “d — d dynamite  sheet,”  he 
waited  till  Cooper  had  gone,  and  then  related  to  Applegate  the  circumstances 


140 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


of  the  above  conversation.  This  was  in  the  winter  of  1888-9.  During  the  next 
summer,  under  similar  circumstances,  he  told  the  story  to  W.  F.  Wilkinson, 
in  each  case  requesting  them  not  to  say  anything  about  it.  (In  order  to 
understand  fully  the  reason  of  this  request,  it  is  necessary  to  feel  and  see 
something  of  the  power  once  possessed  by  Ed.  Greer  to  persecute  the  object 
of  his  displeasure,  even  to  the  destroying  of  his  commercial  standing  and 
driving  him  from  business.)  Mr.  Beard  did  not  want  any  trouble,  and  so  re- 
quested his  personal  friends  not  to  publish  the  matter.  His  telling  them  has 
this  important  bearing  on  this  case,  however,  that  it  effectually  disposes  of 
the  insinuation  of  perjury  cast  upon  him  by  the  Senator.  The  attorneys 
badgered  him  mercilessly,  but  could  not  break  his  testimony  in  any  respect, 
but,  in  the  opinion  of  the  majority,  this  cross-examination  only  made  his 
evidence  stronger.  (682;  also  this  volume,  p.  147.) 

The  charge  is  far-fetched  that  Carter  was  a “constitutional  loafer,”  the  only 
basis  being  his  testimony  that  he  was  janitor  for  several  different  societies 
that  held  their  sessions  in  an  adjacent  hall,  and  that  during  these  sessions  he 
sometimes  waited  below  about  Beard’s  lunch  counter  and  adjoining  hardware 
store.  (578.)  Nothing  in  the  evidence  warrants  any  such  insinuation  as  that 
about  Curfman.  He  was  employed  by  Beard  as  a clerk  or  assistant  in  his 
place  of  business.  The  evidence  of  Dr.  Emory  corroborates  entirely  that 
portion  of  Beard’s  testimony  which  relates  to  the  presence  of  Greer  at  his 
restaurant  on  the  night  in  question,  and  concerning  which  Greer  sought  to 
establish  an  alibi. 

It  is  true  Greer  denied  being  there,  or  that  any  such  conversation  was  held, 
and  tried  to  prove  his  presence  elsewhere,  and  failed.  Mr.  Burkhalter  was 
quickly  so  badly  tangled  in  a maze  of  contradictions  that  he  was  the  butt  of 
jokes  and  ridicule  during  the  remainder  of  the  session.  If  Mr.  Kimball  can 
extract  comfort  from  such  evidence  (?)  he  is  welcome  to  it. — Ed.] 

“The  testimony  of  Thomas  Clover,  Ben.  Clover,  Dr.  Musgrove,  L.  G.  Fry- 
barger,  and  W.  H.  Finney,  is  relied  upon  by  some  of  the  members  of  this 
committee  as  tending  to  prove  that  an  explosion  was  planned  in  connection 
with  the  expose  of  the  Yidettes,  and  that  Mr.  Greer  was  a party  thereto.  This 
testimony  was  merely  hearsay.  The  witnesses  themselves  admit  that  it  was 
based  on  what  they  heard  Dr.  Rude  say,  and  the  latter  testified  that  he  knew 
nothing  about  the  matter,  was  not  in  Kansas  when  the  explosion  occurred, 
and  knew  nothing  about  it  except  what  he  read  in  the  papers.  (415,  et  seg.)” 

[ Mr.  Rude  testified  as  indicated  above,  but  inasmuch  as  this  testimony  di- 
rectly contradicts  his  conversation  with  neighbors  and  friends  when  he  had 
no  motive  to  impel  him  to  falsify,  it  is  of  but  little  value  to  the  defense,  and 
most  persons  would  prefer  to  accept  the  voluntary  conversations  when  the 
motive  for  deception  was  wanting. — Ed.] 

“5th.  Who  is  responsible  for  the  Coffey ville  explosion?  Was  it  the  result 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


141 


of  design  or  accident?  Was  the  box,  package,  or  substance  which  exploded 
in  fact  delivered  to  Mr.  H.  M.  Upham  to  be  shipped  to  Winfield? 

“It  is  not  incumbent  upon  those  who  have  been  publicly  charged  with  con- 
nection with  this  affair  to  prove  who  is  guilty;  it  is  enough  that  they  are  shown 
to  be  innocent  of  any  connection  therewith.  Ordinarily,  a man  is  presumed 
to  be  innocent  until  his  guilt  is  proven;  but  in  cases  where  offenses  are  charged 
to  have  been  committed  in  connection  with  political  matters,  many  people  are 
inclined  to  reverse  the  rule  and  require  the  accused  to  prove  his  innocence. 
The  evidence  showing  those  who  have  been  publicly  charged  with  this  outrage 
to  be  innocent,  the  question  remains,  and  is  of  some  public  interest:  Who  is 
the  person  responsible  for  the  Coffey ville  explosion? 

“Mr.  H.  M.  Upham  is  the  man  who  knows  as  much,  perhaps  more,  about 
this  matter  than  anyone  else.  If  his  story  is  true,  if  he  has  told  the  whole 
truth,  P.  Jason  and  L.  or  J.  Louden  are  yet  to  be  discovered.  If  he  has  mis- 
led us  in  this  matter,  there  are  circumstances  which  indicate  where  the  guilty 
person  is  to  be  found. 

“It  may  be  true,  that  on  the  day  of  the  explosion  when  he  went  home  to  din- 
ner, Mr.  Upham  carried  with  him  a box,  and  placed  it  in  the  photographic  * 
dark  room;  it  may  be  true  that  it  was  this  box,  or  the  contents  thereof,  which 
exploded;  but  is  it  true  that  this  box  was  delivered  to  him,  as  he  says,  by  a 
man  calling  himself  P.  Jason,  to  be  shipped  to  J.  Louden,  at  Winfield?  The 
testimony  of  Mrs.  Upham  would  seem  to  corroborate  him  as  to  a box  being 
brought  home  and  placed  in  the  dark  room.  ( 13.)  The  testimony  of  Dr.  Wood, 
as  to  the  wood  fiber,  bran,  etc.,  found  in  the  wounds  received  by  Mrs.  Upham 
and  Mabel,  would  seem  to  ftidicate  that  the  explosive  was  in  a box;  but  be- 
yond that,  his  testimony  stands  alone.  The  evidence  relied  upon  to  corrobo- 
rate him  contradicts  him,  and  his  testimony,  as  well  as  his  conduct,  is  so  full 
of  contradictions  and  inconsistencies,  as  to  cause  us  to  question  the  truthful- 
ness of  at  least  a part  of  the  testimony  given  by  him. 

“Mr.  Upham  at  first  testified  that,  as  he  remembered,  this  box  was  the  only 
package  received  by  him  for  shipment  on  that  day.  (40.)  At  the  time  he  gave 
his  testimony  there  had  been  nothing  said  publicly  about  sending  for  the 
books  containing  the  entries  showing  the  business  of  the  office  at  Coffeyville 
for  that  day,  and  which  had  long  before  been  sent  in  to  the  offices  of  the  ex- 
press company.  These  books  were  afterwards  procured  by  the  committee. 
Instead  of  there  being  but  one  package  delivered  to  him  on  that  day,  as  he 
testified,  the  books  show  eighteen  entries  of  packages  delivered  for  shipment 
on  that  day  (561),  all  but  four  in  Mr.  Upham’s  handwriting.  (562.)  He  testi- 
fied that  this  package  was  entered  upon  the  express  book  at  the  time  it  was 
delivered  to  him,  about  eleven  o’clock  in  the  forenoon.  (24,  560.)  That  being 
so,  the  entry  would  naturally  appear  somewhere  near  the  middle  of  the  entries 
showing  the  day’s  business.  Instead  of  that,  it  is  the  last  entry  made  in  the 
book  on  that  day.  (561,  562.)  He  testified  that  he  was  directed  to  ship  the 
box  to  J.  Louden  (24,  27),  and  gave  that  as  the  name  in  a written  statement 
made  at  that  time.  (599.)  The  express  books,  when  produced,  showed  that 
the  name  was  L.  Louden.  (561.) 

“When  he  was  first  examined  a number  of  questions  were  asked  him  about 
a way-bill  which  would,  in  the  usual  course  of  business,  be  made  out  to  accom- 
pany the  box,  and  he  testified  freely  and  without  hesitation  concerning  it. 
He  said  that  he  made  out  a way-bill  for  the  package  before  he  went  to  dinner, 
and  left  it  on  his  desk;  that  he  took  the  way-bill  with  him  when  he  went  home 


142 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


that  afternoon  (40),  and  presumed  it  was  sent  off  with  a dummy  or  decoy  pack- 
age that  was  sent  to  Winfield  in  place  of  one  which  exploded.  (24,  40,  156.) 
Several  weeks  afterwards,  the  committee  was  requested  to  send  for  the  ex- 
press agent  who  was  at  Winfield  at  the  time,  to  prove  that  no  way-bill  ‘came 
to  Winfield  with  this  decoy  package.  Mr.  Upham  then  stated  to  the  com- 
mittee, informally,  that  there  was  no  need  to  do  that;  he  would  admit  that 
no  way-bill  was  sent  with  the  package,  and  would  explain  the  matter.  Being 
again  called  to  the  stand,  he  testified  that  after  the  explosion,  but  sometime 
during  the  same  evening,  he  wrote  a note  to  Mr.  Sturr,  a clerk  in  the  store 
where  the  express  office  was  kept,  gave  the  keys  and  note  to  his  brother,  who 
went  down  to  the  express  office,  found  the  entry  on  the  book,  and  the  way-bill, 
and  returned  ‘with  the  original  way-bill,’  and  handed  it  to  him  with  a decoy 
package;  that  he  laid  the  package  on  the  table  and  the  way-bill  on  the  mantel 
shelf,  left  instructions  to  have  both  taken  to  the  train,  and  in  the  morning 
found  that  the  package  had  gone,  but  the  way-bill  was  still  there;  that  he  did 
not  know  what  became  of  it  — the  house  was  in  confusion,  and  many  things 
got  lost.  (598.)  This  was  a direct  contradiction  of  the  testimony  given  by 
him  in  regard  to  the  way-bill  in  the  first  place.  (40.) 

“Again,  when  he  was  first  examined,  he  was  asked  why  he  did  not  take  the 
way-bill  to  his  house  at  noon,  when  he  took  the  package.  This  he  explained 
by  saying  that  he  was  to  return  to  the  express  office  after  dinner,  to  attend  to 
the'  business  of  the  afternoon;  that  it  was  his  custom  to  leave  the  way-bills  at 
the  office  until  he  made  up  the  run  at  night  before  he  went  home  for  good,  and 
then  to  tie  them  together,  ready  to  take  to  the  train.  (40.) 

“In  this  connection  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  reason  why  Mr.  Up- 
ham was  in  the  habit  of  taking  the  express  matter  which  was  to  go  on  the 
night  train  to  his  house,  was  to  save  the  trouble  of  returning  to  the  express 
office  after  he  had  left  it  for  the  day,  it  being  much  nearer  to  go  from  his  house 
to  the  station  than  to  go  via  the  express  office.  (23,  24,  25,  30;  Exhibit  2.) 

“He  testified  that  he  did  return  to  the  express  office  in  the  afternoon  of  the  . 
day  in  question,  and  after  transacting  such  business  as  there  was  to  do,  re- 
turned to  his  home  toward  the  close  of  the  day.  (25.)  If  this  part  of  his  tes- 
timony is  true,  the  way-bill  must  have  been  at  his  house,  ready  to  be  taken  to 
the  night  train  with  the  box.  But  this  is  in  direct  conflict  with  his  later  tes- 
timony, where  he  says  that  his  brother  found  the  original  way-bill  at  the  office, 
and  gave  it  to  him  with  the  decoy  package.  (598.)  And  his  last  statement  is 
again  contradicted  by  his  brother  and  Mr.  Sturr,  who  both  swear,  in  affidavits, 
admitted  in  evidence  by  consent  of  all  parties,  that  it  was  a copy  of  the  way- 
bill, made  out  by  Mr.  Sturr  from  the  forwarding-book,  as  requested  by  Mr. 
Upham  in  his  note,  and  not  the  original,  that  was  taken  over  to  Mr.  Upham’s 
house  with  the  decoy  package.  (592,  593.) 

“Mr.  Upham  testified  that  he  was  developing  the  picture  of  Mabel  (his 
adopted  daughter),  which  he  had  taken  during  the  noon  hour  of  that  day. 
(25.)  Mabel  testified  that  she  had  no  recollection  of  ever  having  sat  to  him 
for  her  picture;  that  it  was  some  out-of-door  picture  that  he  was  developing. 
(22.)  Mr.  Upham  was  then  but  a beginner  in  photography;  if  he  had  taken 
Mabel’s  picture  that  day,  it  would  seem  as  if  she  would  have  remembered  it. 
Mr.  Upham  testified  that  he  had  no  flash- powder,  or  other  explosive  in  his 
laboratory.  (25,  41,  596.)  Mr.  Glasse,  a photographer  living  at  Coffeyville, 
testified  that  Mr.  Upham  had  plenty  of  flash-powder,  and  offered  to  lend  him 
some.” 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


143 


[But  this  offer  was  proved  later  to  have  been  at  another  time.  (596.) — Ed.] 

“The  truth  is  always  consistent.  Where  a witness  makes  statements  about 
the  same  thing,  which  contradict,  or  are  inconsistent  with  each  other,  it  fol- 
lows that  at  least  one  of  the  statements  must  be  untrue,  and  it  suggests  the 
possibility  that  all  of  them  may  be.  From  the  nature  of  this  case,  the  posi- 
tion which  Mr.  Upham  occupies  as  a suspected  person,  his  anxiety  to  shield 
himself,  and  the  manner  in  which  this  testimony  was  given  before  the  com- 
mittee, and  it  does  not  seem  possible  that  all  of  these  contradictions  and  in- 
consistencies could  be  the  result  of  mistaken  recollection.  It  would  hardly 
be  possible  for  a person  to  remember  the  same  thing  so  many  different  ways. 
These  considerations  seriously  affect  the  credibility  of  Mr.  Upham’s  testi- 
mony, and  of  themselves  would  be  a sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  any  or  all 
of  it. 

“Again,  some  stories  are  so  unreasonable,  so  inconsistent  with  known  and 
established  facts,  that  we  have  but  to  try  them  by  the  criterion  of  common 
knowledge  and  experience  and  they  fall  to  pieces.  Let  us  apply  this  test  to 
Mr.  Upham’s  story,  considered  in  connection  with  the  other  facts  in  the  case, 
and  see  if  it  can  be  sustained.  Let  us  follow  out  the  theory  based  thereon  to 
its  natural  and  logical  conclusion,  and  see  if  we  can  reasonably  account  for 
this  explosion  in  that  way. 

“The  effect  of  this  explosion  as  shown  by  the  evidence  — the  testimony  of 
Dr.  Wood  as  to  the  foreign  substances  taken  from  the  wounds,  the  testi- 
mony of  Mrs.  Upham  as  to  the  sissing  noise  preceding  the  explosion  for  a 
moment  — would  seem  to  indicate  that  there  was  a box  containing  a powerful 
explosive,  arranged  to  be  set  off  by  a fuse  to  be  ignited  by  some  friction  at- 
tachment or  otherwise  — a regular  infernal  machine,  in  fact.  So  far  as  the 
testimony  in  this  case  goes,  no  one  has  ever  heard  of  any  person  by  the  name 
of  P.  Jason,  or  J.  Louden,  either  in  the  vicinity  of  Coffey ville,  Winfield,  or 
elsewhere.  It  is  fair,  therefore,  to  say  that  the  names  are  fictitious  and  that 
the  parties  assuming  them  were  desirous  of  concealing  their  identity.  This 
seems  to  have  been  taken  for  granted  by  all  parties  during  this  investigation. 
From  these  facts  it  naturally  follows  that  the  purpose  of  the  parties  in  ship- 
ping the  box  was  unlawful  or  criminal,  and  that  they  desired  to  so  manage 
the  affair  as  to  escape  detection  and  punishment.  It  is  a matter  of  common 
knowledge  that  men  who  register  at  hotels  are  noticed  and  looked  after  by 
the  landlord;  that  men  who  do  business  with  express  companies  are  likely  to 
be  noticed,  and  if  receiving  a package,  must  be  identified  and  sign  a receipt 
for  it.  Instead  of  keeping  away  from  hotels  and  express  offices,  instead  of 
going  quietly  to  the  place  where  the  crime  was  to  be  committed,  with  their 
explosive  concealed  in  a bag  or  a bundle,  setting  it  off  and  going  away,  as 
any  person  who  did  not  desire  to  be  detected  would  have  done,  it  would  seem, 
upon  the  theory  based  upon  Mr.  Upham’s  story,  that  they  deliberately  laid  a 
trap  for  themselves  and  tried  to  walk  into  it.  The  explosive,  or  bomb,  is  so 
improperly  or  unskillfully  contrived  as  to  be  as  likely  to  destroy  them  as  the 
person  intended  to  be  injured.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  did  explode 
without  any  known  cause,  at  a place  where,  on  this  theory,  it  was  not  intended 
to  have  any  explosion  take  place.  The  fuse  is  timed  so  short  that  the  crim- 
inals could  only  get  a few  steps  away.  This  is  shown  by  Mrs.  Upham’s  testi- 
mony, that  the  sissing  noise  was  heard  but  for.a  moment  before  the  explosion. 
On  this  theory,  they  plan  it  for  one  of  the  criminals  to  go  to  the  express  office 
in  Qoffeyville,  deliver  the  explosive  there,  give  a name  and  shipping  direc- 


144 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK.  ' 


tions  to  the  agent;  and  for  the  other  to  go  to  the  express  office  in  Winfield, 
be  identified  as  the  consignee,  sign  the  book  and  get  the  package.  Suppose 
the  explosion  had  occurred  at  Winfield:  inquiry  would  at  once  be  made  if  any 
strangers  had  been  seen  about.  The  express  agent  would  remember  the 
stranger,  Louden,  a name  never  before  heard  there,  who  received  the  pack- 
age. The  place  of  shipment  would  be  known;  the  criminals  are  not  mythical 
personages,  but  are  actually  in  existence;  and  with  a full  description  of  both, 
and  other  matters  to  aid  in  the  identification,  their  capture  would  be  certain. 
This  is  the  theory,  based  upon  the  truth  of  Mr.  Upham’s  testimony,  followed 
out  to  its  logical  conclusions.  If  we  accept  one  we  must  accept  both.  That 
two  criminals  about  to  commit  a crime  with  an  infernal  machine,  anxious,  of 
course,  to  conceal  their  identity,  provide  themselves  with  a machine  as  likely 
to  destroy  them  as  anyone,  and  deliberately  adopt  a plan  most  likely  of  all 
others  to  result  in  their  destruction  and  punishment,  is  a conclusion  which, 
to  say  the  least,  does  not  seem  reasonable. 

“There  is  no  direct  testimony  showing  that  Mr.  Upham,  either  purposely 
or  accidentally,  caused  the  explosion;  but  there  is  a long  chain  of  circum- 
stances which  point  to  him  as  the  person  responsible  for  it.  The  contradic- 
tory, inconsistent  and  unreasonable  statements  made  by  him  in  regard  to  the 
matter,  is  a circumstance  which  of  itself  creates  a strong  presumption  against 
him. 

“Referring  again,  briefly,  to  some  of  these  matters,  as  they  appear  from  his 
testimony,  the  books  kept,  and  affidavits  secured  by  him.  It  appears  that  he 
only  received  one  package  that  day;  that  he  received  eighteen  packages  that 
day;  that  the  package  in  question  was  received  and  entered  upon  the  book 
about  eleven  o’clock  that  day,  and  should  appear  in  about-  the  middle  of  the 
record  of  that  day’s  business;  that  it  was  not  entered  until  the  close  of  busi- 
ness, and  is  the  last  entry  upon  the  book  for  that  day;  that  the  original  way- 
bill for  this  package  was  sent  away  with  the  decoy  package;  that  it  was  not 
sent  away,  but  was  left  by  mistake;  that  the  original  way-bill  was  at  his  house 
at  the  time  of  the  explosion;  that  it  was  not  thereat  that  time;  that  after  the 
explosion  he  sent  for  and  got  the  original  way-bill;  that  it  was  not  the  origi- 
nal way-bill  he  sent  for  and  got,  but  a copy,  made  from  the  forwarding-book. 
And,  as  appears  by  his  own  and  other  testimony,  that  it  was  not  Mabel’s  pic- 
ture that  he  was  developing,  and  that  it  was  her  picture;  that  he  did  not  have 
any  flash-powder  in  his  laboratory,  and  that  he  did  have  plenty  of  it. 

“The  fact  that  the  entry  on  the  forwarding-book  appears  at  the  close  of 
the  day’s  business,  as  the  last  entry,  instead  of  where  it  should  appear  if  Mr. 
Upham’s  testimony  is  true,  is  especially  significant,  and  would  seem  to  indi- 
cate that  the  entry  was  an  afterthought,  put  there  for  a purpose,  in  anticipa- 
tion of  events  about  to  occur.  Mr.  Sturr  swears  that  it  was  only  a few 
minutes  after  the  explosion  when  he  received  the  note  from  Mr.  Upham,  ask- 
ing him  to  make  a copy  of  the  entry  on  the  forwarding-book  (591);  and  Mr. 
Upham’s  brother  also  swears  to  this.  (592.)  Why  was  he  sending  witnesses 
to  the  express  office  to  look  at  and  copy  the  entry  on  the  book  so  soon  after 
the  explosion?  Why  were  all  the  other  scraps  of  writing  — the  description  of 
the  man  and  box  written  at  the  time  (599),  the  letters  and  telegrams  (597)  — 
preserved,  and  the  original  way-bill,  which  he  had,  as  he  says,  the  next  morn- 
ing after  the  explosion,  lost?  He  seems  to  have  made  no  real  effort  to  have 
the  criminal  apprehended,  other  than  to  give  what  purported  to  be  a descrip- 
tion of  him  to  Deputy  Sheriff  Clifford.  He  never  spoke  to  the  county  at- 


REPUBLICAN  REPORT. 


145 


torney,  and  seemingly  manifested  the  greatest  indifference  in  regard  to  the 
matter.  (36.)  Before  his  wife  and  daughter  were  out  of  danger,  while  they 
were  still  confined  to  their  beds,  he  left  them  and  a pleasant  home,  owned  by 
his  wife,  at  Coffeyville,  resigned  his  situation  there,  and  went  away  to  the 
State  of  Maine;  secured  a situation  there,  removed  his  family  there;  in  eight 
or  nine  months  thereafter,  he  resigned  his  situation  there  and  returned  to 
Coffeyville,  and  again  took  up  his  residence  there.  His  reasons  for  these  fre- 
quent and  expensive  moves  are  far  from  satisfactory.  (33,  35.)  The  novice 
in  crime  usually  thinks  that  the  eyes  of  the  world  are  upon  him,  and  that  he, 
of  all  others,  is  suspected  as  the  guilty  person.  In  this  case  the  thought  sug- 
gests itself  that  Mr.  Upham  may  have  desired  to  put  a long  distance  between 
himself  and  the  scene  of  the  explosion.  After  a few  months,  finding  that  the 
course  of  suspicion  was  not  directed  towards  him  at  all,  but  in  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent direction,  he  may  have  felt  safe  to  return. 

“The  laboratory  or  dark  room  was  built  but  a few  days  before  the  explo- 
sion. (592.)  Mrs.  Upham  and  Mabel,  upon  his  special  invitation,  go  there  for 
the  first  time  (14,  21),  almost  to  their  death.  How  the  fuse  was  prepared,  or 
how  it  was  set  off,  the  evidence  does  not  show.  Whether  by  some  friction  de- 
vised to  be  operated  by  pulling  a string,  or  moving  the  package,  the  evidence 
does  not  show.  That  it  was  a short,  a very  short,  time  fuse,  the  evidence  does 
show.  (14.)  And  that  it  burned  its  way  to  the  deadly  explosive  and  ignited  it 
during  the  short  space  of  time  which  elapsed  while  he  had  gone  some  twenty 
or  thirty  feet  after  a pail  of  water,  is  also  shown.  Was  this  building  of  the 
dark  room  or  laboratory,  only  three  or  four  days  before,  this  using  of  it  as  a 
store-room  for  this  package,  this  first  invitation  of  his  wife  and  daughter  to 
enter  the  room,  this  necessity  for  the  pail  of  water,  and  this  setting-off  of  the 
fuse  so  that  the  explosion  would  take  place  just  when  he  was  at  the  pump,  all 
a coincidence?  It  is  possible,  but  to  us  it  does  not  seem  probable. 

“The  concurrent  resolution  authorizing  the  committee  to  continue  this  in- 
vestigation after  the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature,  provided  that  the  com- 
mittee should,  in  its  report  to  the  Governor,  make  such  recommendations  as 
it  deemed  advisable.  The  only  recommendation  which  we  have  to  make  is, 
that  in  the  future  the  investigation  of  alleged  crimes,  in  no  way  connected 
with  the  administration  of  any  public  office  or  trust,  shall  be  left  to  the  ma- 
chinery of  the  State  created  for  that  purpose. 

“Respectfully  submitted.  C.  H.  Kimball, 

J.  G.  Mohlek, 

Members  of  the  committee  on  the  part  of  the  Senate. 

C.  N.  Bishoff, 

Member  of  the  committee  on  the  part  of  the  House . 

[ It  is  not  our  purpose  to  distort  in  any  way  the  evidence  before  the  commit- 
tee, nor  to  offer  any  explanation  for  seeming  contradictions,  and  will  in  this 
case  only  suggest  that  the  terrible  shock  to  Mr.  U pham’s  system  at  the  time 
of  the  explosion  mangling  his  family  — this  may  have  been  a reason  for  the 
discrepancies  that  appear  between  his  evidence  (40)  and  the  books  of  the 
company,  and  for  any  seeming  indistinctness  of  his  memory.  It  will  not  be 
out  of  place  to  cite  the  evidence  which  contradicts  the  vile  insinuation  con- 
tained in  the  last  paragraph  but  one.  (569.) 


146 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Dr.  J.  A.  Wood  on  the  stand: 

Q.  From  your  personal  knowledge,  what  has  been  the  relation  existing  be- 
tween Mr.  Upham  and  his  wife  during  the  period  of  time  that  you  have  been 
acquainted  with  them?  A.  So  far  as  I know,  it  has  been  very  pleasant; 
seemed  to  live  very  happily  together. 

Mr.  Clifford  testified  most  positively  to  the  same  thing  (381);  so  that  the 
horrible  insinuation  is  groundless,  and  only  put  forward  as  a feint  — an  effort 
to  hide  the  tracks  to  the  Republican  camp,  by  magnifying  or  manufacturing 
entire  a suspicion  to  throw  upon  some  one  else. — Ed.] 


REPORT  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  EZRA  OAREY,  M.  SENN,  G.  W.  CRUMLEY,  AND  T.  M. 

TEMPLETON,  THE  ALLIANCE  MEMBERS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE. 

“We,  the  undersigned,  the  members  of  the  joint  committee,  beg  leave  to 
present  our  views  as  to  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  explosion  of  dyna- 
mite at  Coffeyville,  and  the  parties  connected  therewith,  as  ascertained  from 
the  testimony  hereto  appended. 

“As  to  the  theories  indicated  in  the  preliminary  report,  we  do  not  find  any 
evidence  in  support  of  the  theory  that  the  explosion  was  caused  by  careless- 
ness in  handling,  or  the  improper  use  of  chemicals  used  in  photography. 

“The  testimony  of  Mr.  Upham  is,  that  he  had  no  chemicals  in  his  possession 
that  were  explosive.  (Page  23.) 

“Mr.  Glass  testified  that  he  saw  such  chemicals  in  the  (Upham’s)  dark  closet 
about  ten  days  before  the  explosion  (page  352),  but  was  evidently  mistaken. 
(See  affidavit  of  David  Parks,  page  592.)  Upham  testified  that  he  had  the 
chemicals  mentioned  by  Glass  a.  year  later.  (Page  596.) 

“In  regard  to  the  second  theory,  that  of  malicious  intent  on  the  part  of 
Upham  to  kill  his  wife  and  adopted  daughter,  we  find  the  only  testimony  in 
support  of  this  is  that  the  servant  girl  of  Mr.  Upham  told  a colored  man,  who 
told  Mr.  Connor,  that  the  family  relations  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Upham  were  not 
pleasant.  Against  this  far-fetched  and  hearsay  testimony  we  have  the  direct 
testimony  of  N.  M.  Clifford.  (Page  381.)  So  that  the  committee  rejected  as 
unnecessary  the  offer  of  Mr.  Upham  to  subpena  twelve  more  witnesses  to 
prove  that  the  most  pleasant  relations  existed  between  them.  The  fact  that 
the  entry  of  the  box  delivered  by  P.  Jason,  and  addressed  to  J.  Louden  at 
Winfield,  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  page  in  the  forwarding-book,  and  the  way- 
bill lost,  can  easily  be  accounted  for  by  the  confusion  and  excitement  which 
followed  the  explosion,  and  on  account  of  different  persons  attending  to  the 
duties  of  the  office  on  that  day.  (Page  591.) 

“The  third  theory,  that  it  was  revenge  on  the  part  of  the  Union  Labor 
party  on  account  of  the  Yidette  expose,  no  evidence  being  offered  in  support 
of  this,  except  from  assertions  in  newspaper  articles,  we  dismiss  it  as  unsup- 
ported and  untenable. 

“The  fourth  theory  is,  that  it  was  a scheme  of  Ed.  P.  Greer,  Bion  S.  Hutch- 
ins, C.  A.  Henrie,  and  probably  others,  to  add  force  and  emphasis  to  the  second 
Yidette  expose,  thereby  injuring  the  Union  Labor  party,  and  throwing  sus- 
picion on  the  Vincent  brothers  as  being  anarchists  and  dynamiters.  In  sup- 
port of  this  theory  we  find  a large  amount  of  testimony.  About  the  4th  of 
October,  1888,  the  Winfield  Courier  published  the  so-called  Yidette  expose  of 


POPULIST  REPORT. 


147 


what  he  called  the  secret  political,  revolutionary,  treasonable,  and  anarchistic 
organization,  trying,  in  the  most  exaggerated  language,  to  convince  the  peo- 
ple that  this  organization  controlled  the  Union  Labor  party,  which  was  then 
in  the  field  with  a ticket.  (Page  119.)  This  expose  fell  flat,  exciting  more 
ridicule  than  serious  consideration. 

“Soon  after  the  first  expose  a consultation  was  held  between  Ed.  P.  Greer, 
Hutchins,  and  Booth,  in  regard  to  a second  expose.  (See  telegram  of  Booth 
to  Greer,  page  94;  Poorman’s  letter  to  Greer,  123;  telegram  on  page  96.) 

“ Remembering,  however,  how  unwilling  the  people  were  to  believe  that  the 
farmers  of  Kansas,  who  largely  constituted  the  Union  Labor  party,  were  con- 
trolled by  a set  of  revolutionary  anarchists,  they  determined  to  give  emphasis 
to  the  expose  by  having,  at  the  proper  time  and  place,  an  actual  explosion. 
Undoubtedly  the  intention  was  to  take  all  possible  precaution  against  anyone 
being  directly  hurt  by  the  explosion.  In  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this 
theory,  we  refer  to  the  testimony  of  Yolney  Beard  (page  126)  in  regard  to  a 
conversation  he  overheard  between  Ed.  Greer  and  Sol.  Burkhalter.  Also  the 
testimony  of  Congressman  Clover,  his  son  Ben.  Clover,  Dr.  Musgrove,  L.  G. 
Frybarger,  W.  H.  Finney  (pages  141  to  158),  and  Dr.  Rude’s  testimony  (page 
414).  The  testimony  of  these  witnesses  points  unmistakably  to  a plot  includ- 
ing explosives.  The  effort  to  impeach  the  truth  of  these  statements  by  the 
testimony  of  Sol.  Burkhalter  (page  295),  and  Hendricks  and  Wilson  (page 
303),  has  only  added  strength  to  it.  The  testimony  of  J.  W.  Carter  ( page  577), 
H.  U.  Curfman  (578),  and  E.  B.  Emory  (579),  establishing  the  truth  of  Beard’s 
testimony. 

“Lee  Jones’s  testimony  (page  534),  given  unwillingly  and  under  protest, 
also  indicates  that  explosives  were  contemplated  in  connection  with  the  Vi- 
dette  expose.” 

[ Inasmuch  as  this  is  matter  not  heretofore  widely  published,  we  append 
that  portion  of  Mr.  Lee  Jones’s  evidence  that  bears  upon  the  case  at  issue. 
(Mr.  Kimball  forgot  (?)  it  in  his  report.) 

Lee  Jones,  being  duly  sworn,  testified  as  follows: 

Examined  by  Mr.  Henderson:  Q.  You  may  state  your  name  to  the  com- 

mittee. A.  Lee  Jones. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  one  W.  A.  Gebhardt?  A.  I know  him  — yes,  sir. 
Not  intimately  acquainted  with  him.  . . . 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  upon  that  occcasion  with  ref- 
erence to  the  so-called  Coffeyville  dynamite  explosion?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I believe 
I did.  [Gebhardt  was  Asst.  Sec.  with  Hutchins  for  Rep.  Com.  in  1888. — Ed.] 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with -him  with  reference  to  the  action  of 
the  Republican  State  Central  Committee  of  1888?  A.  Yes,  sir;  some  talk  with 
him. 

Q.  Did  he,  in  that  conversation,  state  to  you  what  connection,  if  any,  he 
had  with  that  committee?  A.  He  said,  but  I have  forgotten  what  it  was. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  conversation,  or  the  substance  thereof,  that  you 
had  with  him  upon  the  occasion  which  I have  mentioned?  A.  I remember 
some  of  it. 


148 


POPULIST  l HAND-BOOK . 


Q.  Will  you  kindly  state  to  the  committee  what  that  conversation  was? 

Mr.  Curtis  said:  We  object  to  that  question.  Mr.  Gebhardt  lives  in  the 

State  of  Kansas,  and  can  be  produced  as  a witness. 

Mr.  Carey  stated  that  the  witness  had  been  subpenaed,  and  was  sick  and 
could  not  come.  The  question  was  allowed  to  be  answered. 

A.  I would  like  to  say  to  the  committee  that  this  conversation  was  given  to 
me  confidentially,  and  any  statement  that  I make  I do  so  under  protest.  The 
conversation,  as  near  as  I can  remember  it — I met  Mr.  Gebhardt,  and  asked 
him  what  he  was  here  for,  and  he  said  he  came  down  to  attend  the  convention. 
We  talked  quite  awhile.  I being  a Democrat  and  he  a Republican,  we  talked 
quite  awhile.  I asked  him  what  they  were  going  to  do  with  the  Farmers’  Al- 
liance, and  he  laughed  and  said,  “We  will  get  away  with  them  the  same  as  the 
Union  Labor  party.”  And  I asked  him  to  tell  me  how  that  was  done.  After 
swearing  me  to  secrecy  on  all  the  oaths  he  knew,  he  told  me  that  Mr.  Henrie, 
Mr.  Hutchins  and  himself  — that  is  the  only  three  I can  remember  — ar- 
ranged this  expose  in  room  No.  7,  at  the  Windsor  Hotel;  and  that  is  about 
the  sum  and  substance  of  the  whole  business. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  about  the  explosion  in  that  connection  ? A. 
Why,  I believe  it  was  talked  over;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  about  that  ? A.  I cannot  remember.  I asked  him  if 
they  did  not  prepare  the  box  up  there.  He  laughed  the  matter  off.  It  was 
just  a running  conversation  of  that  kind. 

By  Senator  Kimball  : Q.  You  have  stated  the  sum  and  substance  of  all  of 

it?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Henderson:  Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  in  that  conversation  he  told 

you,  Mr.  Jones,  that  the  box  that  exploded  at  Coffeyville  was  prepared  at  Re- 
publican headquarters,  or  words  to  that  effect?  A'  I do  not  remember  that 
he  did. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  he  said  upon  that  question?  A.  I have  just 
stated  that  it  was  a running  conversation;  that  was  all  there  was  to  it.  And 
I cannot  remember  the  details. 

Q.  You  do  know  that  the  preparation  of  the  box  was  mentioned  in  that  con- 
versation? A.  Yes,  Sir;  I think  it  was.  . . . 

By  Senator  Kimball:  Q.  But  you  say,  Mr.  Jones,  that  when  you  did  charge 
that  this  dynamite  bomb  was  prepared  at  Republican  headquarters  here  in 
Topeka,  that  Mr.  Gebhardt  denied  that?  A.  No,  I did  not  say  that.  I cannot 
remember  that  he  denied  it,  or  affirmed  it.  I have  been  trying  to  think  of  the 
reply  that  he  made  me.  It  was  some  kind  of  a witty  reply. 

Q.  You  say  he  did  not  admit  it?  A.  Not  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 

By  Judge  Webb:  Q.  You  said  you  asked  him  what  they  were  going  to  do 
with  the  Farmers’  Alliance?  A.  Yes,  sir. 


POPULIST  REPORT. 


149 


Q.  What  was  his  reply?  A.  Get  rid  of  them  the  same  as  they  did  the  Union 
Labor  party;  that  is  as  near  as  I can  now  remember  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  how  they  got  rid  of  that  party?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  did  he  tell  you  they  got  rid  of  it?  A.  As  I say,  he  went  on  and  told 
me,  after  swearing  me  to  secrecy  about  the  expose,  that  he,  and  Hutchins,  and 
Henrie,  and  I do  not  know  but  that  he  mentioned  others,  prepared  it.  Mr. 
Henrie  was  the  only  man  I knew,  and  he  said  it  was  prepared  in  room  6 or 
7 — I cannot  locate  the  number — at  the  Windsor  hotel. 

Q.  How  did  it  happen  that  there  was  any  allusion  made  at  all  to  the  Coffey- 
ville  explosion?  A.  Well,  I cannot  tell  you  how  that  did  come  up. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  question  that  you  propounded  to  him  connected 
with  that?  A.  After  he  had  told  me  what  he  had,  I just  laughingly  asked  him 
if  they  had  prepared  a bomb  up  there  too. 

Q.  Any  answer  to  that?  Did  he  make  any  reply?  A.  Yes,  sir;  he  made 
some  reply  — some  witty  reply.  I cannot  say  that  he  said  they  did  make  it, 
or  did  not  make  it.  . . . 

Q.  You  say  that  what  was  said  to  you  was  said  under  injunctions  of  secrecy? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  . . . 

Q.  Did  you  gather  or  infer  from  the  conversation  that  you  had  with  him 
that  he  knew  where  this  bomb  was  prepared?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I believe  he  does 
know,  if  you  want  my  opinion. 

This  is  the  substance  of  several  pages  of  record  evidence,  and  those  present 
were  convinced  that  Mr.  Jones  was  not  only  honest,  but  careful.  The  addi- 
tional fact  that  he  was  an  unwilling  witness,  refusing  to  come  until  threat- 
ened with  an  attachment;  he  told  only  what  he  must  tell  under  penalty  of 
perjury  — this  materially  adds  to  the  importance  of  his  testimony. — Ed.] 

“As  to  C.  A.  Henrie’s  connection  with  the  preparation  and  delivery  of  the 
box  at  Coffey ville,  we  refer  to  Upham’s  description  of  the  man  who  delivered 
the  box  to  him  (page  27);  I.  M.  Waldrop’s  description  of  the  men  seen  at 
Yaleda  on  the  evening  of  the  18th  of  October  (pages  571,  577);  also  the  testi- 
mony of  Mrs.  J.  G.  Cougher,  that  in  a conversation  between  her  husband  and 
Henrie  she  heard  Henrie  give  the  name  of  the  hotel  where  he  stopped  at  when 
in  Coffey ville  (page  212);  also  the  other  fact,  that  the  hotel  register  shows 
that  two  strangers  registered  in  Coffeyville  on  the  18th  of  October,  1888. 
(Page  869.) 

“Now  suppose  him  to  wear  a false  beard  (see  evidence  in  regard  to  that  on 
page  379)  and  extra  suit  of  clothing  to  give  him  a heavier  appearance,  and 
the  description  given  suits  that  of  Henrie  very  well.  The  peculiarity  of  very 
rapidly  winking  his  eyes  was  strikingly  observed  of  C.  A.  Henrie  when  on  the 
witness-stand,  especially  when  becoming  nervous  under  cross-examination. 
Also  the  fact  of  part  of  his  hair  coming  down  over  one  side  of  his  forehead. 
Such  peculiarities  are  of  far  greater  importance  for  the  purpose  of  identifica- 
tion than  slight  discrepancies  in  weight,  whiskers,  and  age.  The  description 
of  his  eyes,  while  not  strictly  correct,  only  corroborates  the  testimony  that  he 

—9 


150 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


is  the  man.  His  eyes  actually  appear  dark,  when  viewed  from  a certain  dis- 
tance, he  standing  in  the  shade,  although  they  are  blue. 

“Mr.  Waldrop  was  able  to  point  out  Henrie  in  the  Senate  chamber  as  the 
man  whom  he  believed  he  saw  on  the  evening  of  October  the  18th,  at  Valeda, 
after  over  two  years  had  elapsed.  On  the  witness-stand,  Mr.  Waldrop  stated 
that  he  would  not  positively  swear  that  C.  A.  Henrie  was  the  man,  but  to  the 
best  of  his  belief  he  was.  (Page  571.)  The  manner  and  appearance  of  Mr. 
Waldrop  under  examination  stamping  him  as  an  honest  and  conscientious 
man. 

“A  careful  reading  of  the  testimony  of  Samuel  C.  Elliott,  county  attorney 
of  Montgomery  county  in  1888  (pages  48,  53),  and  also  that  of  O.  P.  Ergen- 
bright,  his  successor  in  1889,  almost  forces  the  conclusion  that  they  were 
more  desirous  to  prevent  the  finding  of  the  guilty  party  than  to  prosecute. 
While  pretending,  through  published  letters,  a willingness  to  prosecute,  no 
one  can  read  the  testimony  of  O.  P.  Ergenbright  and  correspondence  (pages 
63-67)  without  becoming  convinced  of  his  desire  to  shield  and  to  prevent  ar- 
rest and  trial. 

“In  addition  to  this,  read  Highleyman’s  testimony  about  his  efforts  to 
prosecute,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  officers  responded  (pages  242-254); 
and  H.  Vincent’s  testimony  on  pages  266,  275. 

“The  Legislature  in  1889  passed  a law  which  made  a prosecution  more  dif- 
ficult. ( Page  275.) 

“Mr.  Upham  left  a good  home  and  a good  position  a few  weeks  after  the 
explosion,  while  his  wife  and  daughter  were  still  in  bed,  dangerously  wounded. 
He  received  $750  from  the  express  company  for  the  injuries  received  by  his 
family  from  the  explosion.  (Page  597.)  There  seemed  to  be  a studied  effort 
in  the  testimony  of  Upham  and  family  to  hold  back  something. 

“All  this  leaves  an  impression  on  our  minds  that  there  was  an  influence 
brought  to  bear  on  him,  which  in  the  first  place  would  prevent  him  from  tes- 
tifying, when  the  Vincents  made  their  effort  to  prosecute  the  guilty  parties; 
and  in  this  investigation  may  have  induced  him  to  withhold  certain  matters. 

“The  defense  claimed  an  alibi  for  C.  A.  Henrie.  In  proof  of  which,  see 
affidavit  of  Mrs. Lucy  Barlow  (page  495),  also  affidavit  of  John  F.  Cummings 
( page  448),  testimony  of  D.  O.  McCray  (page  446),  testimony  of  Arthur  Cap- 
per (page  463),  and  testimony  of  Frank  C.  Scott  (pages  460,and  461). 

“The  affidavits  above  referred  to  were  secured  by  Henrie  to  be  used  by  him 
in  making  a public  denial  of  the  charges  connecting  him  with  the  explosion 
at  Coffeyville.  The  affidavit  of  Mrs.  Barlow  was  secured  in  August,  1889,  and 
that  of  Mr.  Cummings  in  June,  1889.  Mrs.  Barlow  lived  in  Kansas  City  at 
the  time.  Henrie  and  his  wife  made  a number  of  trips  to  Kansas  City  before 
he  secured  the  desired  affidavit. 

“Mr.  Cummings,  who  is  generally  considered  irresponsible,  lives  in  Topeka. 

“Now  we  consider  the  course  taken  by  Mr.  Henrie  to  prove  an  alibi  in  1889, 
as  very  inconsistent  and  unnatural,  if  he  knew,  at  the  time  of  securing  said 
affidavit,  that  these  men,  who  were  employes  in  the  Topeka  Capital  office, 
knew  that  he  was  at  work  in  that  office  on  October  18,  1888. 

“We  believe  that  if  he  had  had  knowledge  of  those  facts  he  would  have 
secured  their  affidavits,  rather  than  of  persons  who  are  unsettled  in  their  busi- 
ness, and  in  a measure  irresponsible,  one  of  which  resided  in  Kansas  City. 

“The  most  reasonable  thing  to  have  done,  would  have  been  to  secure  the 
affidavits  of  the  men  with  whom  he  claimed  to  have  been  employed  on  Octo- 


POPULIST  REPORT. 


151 


ber  18th,  1888.  Bat  there  is  nothing  in  the  testimony  of  either  McCray, 
Capper,  or  Scott,  which  shows  that  there  was  anything  said  between  Henrie 
and  the  above-named  gentlemen  as  to  what  they  knew  of  Henrie’s  whereabouts 
on  October  18th;  but  one  of  the  above,  Mr.  Capper,  testifies  that  he  never 
was  asked  to  make  an  affidavit,  and  has  not  had  any  conversation  with  Henrie 
about  the  matter  since  the  fall  of  1888,  until  two  days  before  he  gave  his  testi- 
mony before  the  committee. 

“As  these  three  gentlemen  are  only  positive  as  to  one  thing,  namely,  that 
Henrie  was  in  the  employ  of  the  Capital  office  on  the  18th  of  October,  and  as 
there  are  some  conflicting  statements  regarding  dates,  as  to  Henrie’s  connec- 
tion with  the  Capital  at  that  time,  it  is  possible,  and  highly  probable,  that 
they  were  mistaken  in  reference  to  the  time  of  the  issue  of  the  Daily  Capital 
in  which  the.  second  expose  was  published. 

“Dates  on  newspapers  do  not  always  indicate  correctly  the  day  of  issue. 
For  cause,  the  issue  may  be  later  than  the  date. 

“D.  O.  McCray  says  that  Henrie,  on  the  18th  of  October,  assisted  in  the 
preparation  of  the  matter  of  an  expose  of  Yidettes,  to  be  published  the  next 
day  (page  447);  whereas  Mr.  Hutchins  wrote  from  Topeka  to  Ed.  P.  Greer, 
of  Winfield,  on  the  17th  of  October,  ‘The  forms  are  being  made  up’  (page 
96) ; which  shows  that  the  matter  was  prepared  and  in  the  State  printing  office 
previous  to  the  18th;  also  states  that  he  will  send  proofs  out  for  publication 
on  Friday  morning,  but  ‘will  advise  by  wire  to-morrow,  if  it  is  to  be  printed 
by  you  Thursday  evening.’  (Page  96.) 

“October  18,  1888,  was  on  Thursday.  The  expose  was  to  be  printed  in  the 
Winfield  Courier  on  Thursday  evening,  the  18th,  as  per  telegram  of  B.  S. 
Hutchins.  (Page  96.) 

“The  same  matter  that  was  published  in  the  Courier  at  night  was  to  be 
published  in  other  papers  of  the  State  the  next  day.  It  therefore  seems  to  us 
that  the  idea  of  Henrie  being  in  the  Capital  office  on  Thursday,  the  18th  of 
October,  assisting  in  the  preparation  of  the  matter  of  the  expose,  is  not  in 
harmony  with  the  other  facts  as  indicated  above;  and  our  opinion  is,  that  the 
presence  of  Henrie  in  the  Capital  office  was  some  other  time  than  the  18th. 

“In  rebuttal  of  effort  to  prove  an  alibi  for  Henrie,  we  find  the  affidavit  of 
Edwin  French,  who  lived  in  the  same  house  with  Henrie.  (Page  178.)  Also, 
testimony  of  Thomas  A.  Grange.  ( Page  587.)  French  states  that,  to  his 
positive  knowledge,  Henrie  was  not  at  home  on  October  18,  1888,  nor  at  least 
for  two  days  before  the  explosion,  and  not  until  notice  of  the  explosion  had 
appeared  in  the  daily  papers;  that  Henrie  came  home  after  the  explosion, 
late  at  night,  with  gripsack  in  hand,  as  though  he  had  been  away  on  a journey. 

“On  the  second  day  after  his  return,  a request  came  to  the  family  of  Mr. 
French,  by  Mrs.  Barlow,  for  them  not  to  mention  Henrie’s  being  at  home. 

“Further,  Mr.  Grange  testifies  that  on  the  18th  day  of  October,  the  day  of 
the  explosion,  the  men  called  for  Henrie  at  his  home,  but  could  not  ascertain 
where  he  was.  Why  this  privacy,  if  no  wrong  had  been  committed? 

“Also  testimony  of  Mrs.  Cougher  (page  212),  heretofore  referred  to,  show- 
ing that  Henrie  was  at  a hotel  in  Coffey ville  at  some  time  on  or  about  the  18th 
of  October,  1888. 

“Additional  proof  that  the  managers  of  the  Republican  campaign  are  guilty 
of  aiding  and  abetting  the  preparation  and  the  sending  of  the  box,  is  found 
in  the  appointment  of  C.  A.  Henrie  as  clerk  in  the  Labor  Bureau. 


152 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


“A  large  amount  of  testimony  plainly  showing  that  he  had  been  active  in 
opposition  to  the'  Republican  party  until  August,  1888.  The  evidence  also 
proves  that  on  account  of  his  personal  dishonesty,  immoral  habits  and  gen- 
eral want  of  truthfulness,  he  had  lost  the  confidence  and  respect  of  his  former 
associates.  (Page  583.)  [588. — Ed.] 

“His  willingness  to  betray  his  associates,  and  to  perform  any  disreputable 
act,  seemed  to  be  a high  recommendation  for  the  managers  of  the  Republican 
campaign  to  employ  him. 

“The  evidence  shows  that  he  was  employed  in  preparing  the  matter  of  the 
so-called  expose.  A large  portion  of  the  time,  while  in  the  employ  of  the  Re- 
publican Central  Committee,  he  spent  in  traveling  to  Cincinnati,  New  York, 
and  different  cities  in  Kansas,  where  he  had  ample  opportunity  to  procure 
the  necessary  material  for  a dynamite  explosion.  See  testimony  of  J.  W. 
Whitley  (page  179),  which  shows  that  C.  A.  Henrie  presided  over  a meeting 
in  Topeka  at  which  Parsons,  the  anarchist,  spoke;  and  that  he  afterward 
went,  with  a few  others,  to  a private  house,  where  they  talked  for  several 
hours;  and  Parsons  explained  the  method  of  preparing  dynamite,  and  the 
use  it  might  have  in  future  conflict.  (Page  194.) 

“He  admits  in  his  testimony  that  he  received  pay  for  all  services  rendered 
to  the  Republican  Central  Committee  at  the  regular  price. 

“It  seems  difficult  to  suppose  any  reason  for  a Republican  Governor  to  ap- 
point C.  A.  Henrie  to  any  position. 

“No  labor  organization  asked  for  his  appointment.  He  was  not  a Repub- 
lican. 

“His  personal  character  was  such  as  to  preclude  his  appointment  to  any 
position  of  trust  or  profit. 

“He  was  known  to  be  an  avowed  anarchist,  or  at  least  to  be  in  sympathy 
with  them. 

“He  had  no  recommendation  from  anyone,  except  Bion  S.  Hutchins  and 
Henry  Booth.  And  why  they  requested  his  appointment  can  best  be  judged 
from  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Cougher,  when  she  states  that  she  heard  Henrie 
say  that  ‘they  dare  not  refuse  him.’  (Page  212.)  It  is  impossible  to  think 
of  any  explanation  of  C.  A.  Henrie’s  appointment,  except  that  he  knew  about 
the  damnable  plot  of  preparing  and  sending  the  box,  and  that  for  the  purpose 
of  keeping  him  silent,  the  position  was  given  him.  The  refusal  of  the  Leg- 
islature of  1889  to  investigate  the  explosion  seems  to  us  a confirmation  of  the 
theory  that  the  managers  of  the  Republican  party  were  connected  with  it. 

“Surely  such  a serious  crime,  accompanied  by  such  results,  openly  charged 
to  a dominant  party,  ought  to  be  worthy  of  an  investigation. 

“Joe  P.  Winton,  the  business  manager  of  the  Winfield  Courier , and  Sid. 
Cure,  a Republican  officer,  seem  to  be  watching  and  waiting  around  the  ex- 
press office  on  the  morning  of  the  18th,  when  the  box  ought  to  have  arrived 
at  Winfield.  (Page  316.) 

“The  open  charges  of  the  Vincent  brothers  through  the  Nonconformist 
and  otherwise,  that  the  managers  of  the  Republican  party  were  responsible 
for  the  explosion,  finally  had  the  effect  to  bring  leading  Republicans  together 
in  consultation  about  the  propriety  of  making  a denial  of  the  charges.  ( Page 
286.) 

“It  was  determined  to  obtain  Henrie’s  affidavits  denying  these  charges. 

“Leland  Webb  was  sent  for  by  the  Governor  to  draft  the  affidavit.  After 


POPULIST  REPORT. 


153 


some  conversation  Webb  said,  ‘I  did  not  know  that  this  administration  was 
making  that  kind  of  appointments,’  to  which  the  Governor  replied,  ‘Leland, 
we  had  to  do  it.’  (Page  286.) 

“As  to  the  value  of  this  affidavit  in  establishing  the  innocence  of  C.  A.  Hen- 
rie,  we  let  the  impartial  reader  judge  after  reading  testimony  on  page  211, 
where  Mr.  Henrie  states,  ‘I  can  swear  to  anything.’ 

“The  defense  have  the  honor  (if  it  is  an  honor)  of  putting  two  witnesses 
on  the  stand  who  admitted  that  they  lied  for  political  purposes.  (Dr.  Rude’s 
testimony,  page  418;  C.  [J.]  W.  Henthorn,  page  412.) 

“Ed.  Greer’s  and  Bion  Hutchins’s  testimony  abounds  in  distinctions  be- 
tween private  actions  and  political  actions,  indicating  that  their  habits  of 
thought  and  action  have  been  of  such'character  that  they  have  gradually  lost 
all  sense  of  obligation  to  tell  the  truth  or  act  honestly  in  a political  way. 

“While, we  do  not  believe  that  the  ‘purification  of  politics  is  an  iridescent 
dream,’  we  recognize,  from  the  testimony  offered  in  this  investigation  about 
the  methods  and  practices  of  politicians,  that  there  is  an  imperative  necessity 
for  such  purification.” 

[We  here  append  a portion  of  Greer’s  examination  as  illustrative  of  the 
above,  and  ask  the  reader  to  note  who  asks  the  different  questions. 

E.  P.  Greer,  being  recalled  for  further  examination,  testified  as  follows: 

Examined  by  Mr.  S^nn:  Q.  You  have  frequently  charged  the  Vincents  with 

being  anarchists  and  socialists?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  are,  and  have  been  an  editor  for  some  years?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  a fair  knowledge  of  the  English  language,  I suppose?  A.  Not 
technically,  but  reasonably  fair  knowledge  as  to  the  general  acceptance. 

Q.  What  is  the  definition  of  an  anarchist?  A.  Whose  definition? 

Q.  I mean  the  definition  as  it  is^generally  supposed  to  be  understood?  A. 
I have  given  my  individual  definition  of  the  word  anarchists.  I cannot  repeat 
the  technical  definition  of  the  word. 

Q.  You  certainly  have  some  idea  of  what  the  proper  definition  of  the  word 
is?  A.  I cannot  give  you  anyone  else’s  definition  except  my  own. 

Q.  You  admit,  then,  that  you  have  used  that  word  for  years  without  any 
knowledge  at  all  of  what  the  proper  meaning  is?  A.  No,  sir;  I do  not  admit 
anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Then  give  what  you  understand  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word.  A. 
I understand  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  to  be  one  committed  to  a change 
in  the  social  and  political  conditions  of  the  country,  by  civil  means,  if  possi- 
ble, if  not,  by  forcible  means. 

Q.  Do  you  not  understand  that  the  gist  of  any  definition  of  anarchy  means, 
to  do  away  with  law  and  order,  to  break  law  — to  have  no  order,  that  is?  A. 
To  my  mind,  anarchy  conveys  the  impression  that  the  person  entertaining 
anarchistic  opinions  feels  at  liberty  to  observe  or  disobey  any  laws  according 
to  his  own  individual  opinion  as  to  the  justice  or  injustice  of  those  laws;  but 


154 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


it  does  not  convey  the  necessity  of  his  breaking  laws  in  order  to  be  an  an- 
archist. 

Q.  What  is  the  proper  definition  of  socialism?  A.  I should  apply  the  same 
definition  by  dropping  the  idea  of  force. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  the  words  “socialist”  or  “socialism”  and  “an- 
archist” are  exactly  opposite?  A.  No,  sir,  I do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  socialism,  especially  State  socialism, 'implies  more 

government,  more  law,  and  an  ex- 
tension of  the  functions  of  gov- 
ernment, while  anarchy  means  the 
doing  away  with  government  all 
together,  and  doing  away  with  law? 
A.  That  is  not  my  idea  of  social- 
ism as  practiced  in  the  United 
States. 

Q.  Have  you  not  heard  of  social- 
ism being  practiced  in  the  United 
States?  A.  I have  heard  of  it  quite 
frequently. 

Q.  You  admit,  then,  that  you 
have  used  these  two  terms  — so- 
cialism and  anarchism  — indis- 
criminately for  years?  A.  I admit 
no  such  thing. 

Q.  Then  without  taking  the 
pains  to  find  out  what  the  words 
meant?  A.  No,  sir;  I do  not  ad- 
mit any  such  thing. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  taken  the 
pains  to  look  up  the  meaning  of 
these  words?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  certainly  do  not  mean  to 
tell  me  that  you  found  them  to  be 
identical?  You  don’t  mean  to  say 
that  one  person  could  be  an  an- 
archist and  a socialist  at  the  same 
time?  A.  No,  sir;  I have  not  made  any  such  assertion.  I do  not  think  that 
a person  can  be  a socialist  and  an  anarchist  at  the  same  time,  but  I think 
the  two  are  upon  the  same  general  line  of  thought  and  action,  except  one  is 
more  extreme  than  the  other  — a great  deal  more  extreme. 

Q.  You  mean  to  say  that,  after  examination  of  the  meaning  of  these  words, 
that  they  are  both  in  the  same  direction,  only  one  is  a little  more  extreme 


ED.  P.  GREER. 


POPULIST  REPORT. 


155 


than  the  other?  A.  Yes;  that  is  my  conclusion  after  careful  examination  of 
every  definition  and  feature  and  declaration  of  purposes  surrounding  the  two 
classes  of  people. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact,  as  I stated  before,  that  anarchy  means  the  doing  away  . 
with  law  and  order,  and  the  breaking  up  of  existing  conditions?  A.  I believe 
that  is  Webster’s  definition,  substantially. 

Q.  Now,  is  it  not  a fact  that  socialism  implies  the  extension  of  the  func- 
tions of  government  by  adding  new  functions,  such  as  the  controlling  of  rail- 
roads, owning  of  ships,  manufactories  — in  fact,  everything  that  people  do 
now  on  their  own  account?  A.  The  definition  you  give  should  apply  to  Bella- 
myism.  It  is  very  distinct  from  socialism. 

Q.  Is  that  not  the  definition  the  dictionary  gives?  A.  I think  the  definition 
is  something  on  that  line;  I do  not  remember  the  distinct  definition  as  to  so- 
cialism. 

Q.  Then,  after  admitting  this,  you  still  insist  that  it  is  proper  to  call  a man 
a socialist  and  an  anarchist?  A.  I think  that  when  people  add  to  the  doctrine 
of  socialism  the  further  doctrine  of  denunciation  of  courts,  juries,  and  all  that 
sort  of  thing,  and  that  without  exception,  making  that  their  rule  of  action  as 
to  all  courts  and  all  juries,  that  it  comes  pretty  near  making  an  anarchist. 
That  is  about  my  idea  of  it. 

Q.  You  have  stated  the  personal  character  of  the  Vincents’  was  good?  A.  I 
have  so  stated — yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  conduct  flows  from  character?  A.  I do. 

Q.  How  do  you  harmonize  it  that  parties  who  have  good  character  will  form- 
ulate certain  terrible  doctrines  as  anarchy,  and  devise  such  schemes  as  you 
have  charged  them  with?  A.  I did  not  imply  in  this  matter  of  good  charac- 
ter, any  connection  further  than  their  every-day  association  with  men.  The 
matter  of  every-day  association,  and  the  matter  of  principle  and  life  doctrine, 
are  entirely  two  different  principles  to  apply  to  personal  character.  Upon 
the  first  principle,  I say  they  are  gentlemen  of  excellent  personal  character; 
upon  the  second  principle,  I say  that  their  excellency  of  personal  character 
make  them  that  much  more  dangerous  in  teaching  the  doctrines  which  they 
seem  to  hold. 

Q.  What  is  the  definition  of  character?  A.  My  definition  of  character  is 
the  general  estimation  in  which  an  individual  is  held  in  the  community,  as  to 
his  immediate  associations. 

Q.  Don’t  you  confuse  the  definition  of  character  with  reputation?  A.  I 
may  do  so  — yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  not  character  that  which  a man  really  is,  not  what  he  seems  to  be? 
A.  The  two  words  are  often  used  in  the  same  connection  and  for  the  purpose 
of  impressing  the  same  idea;  but  the  technical  definition  is  on  the  line  which 
you  suggest. 


156 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Q.  Do  yon  believe  that  a man  of  good  character  can  be  guilty  of  mean  or 
bad  actions?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I do.  That  is  my  idea  of  things;  probably  not  as 
to  his  private  actions. 

Q.  You  seem  to  make  a great  difference  between  different  actions  of  men; 
that  is,  between  his  private  actions  and  his  public  or  political  actions?  A.  I 
do. 

By  Senator  Kimball  : Q.  This  statement  which  you  have  made,  and  the 
distinctions  which  you  have  made  or  drawn  between  the  private  lives  and 
public  acts  of  people,  are  based,  I suppose,  upon  your  own  observation,  and 
your  reading  of  history  and  the  experience  you  have  had  with  the  doings  of 
mankind  ? A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  is  well  established  by  the  experience  of  mankind,  that 
persons  who  have  committed  the  gravest  crimes  against  society,  law,  order 
and  good  government,  are  frequently  men  of  unquestioned  integrity  and  irre- 
proachable private  character  ? A.  That  is  undoubtedly  true. 

Q.  And  it  was  that  distinction  that  you  were  referring  to  when  you  mad© 
the  distinction  between  the  private  and  public  acts  and  character  of  persons? 
A.  I believe  I stated  in  my  former  evidence  that  the  fact  that  persons  whom  I 
had  designated  as  anarchists  appeared  to  be  sincere  and  honest  and  active  in 
their  convictions,  made  me  feel  that  they  were  more  dangerous  than  they 
otherwise  would  have  been. 

By  Mr.  Senn:  Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  men  who  have  resorted  to  mean  and 
low  tricks  to  carry  their  point  in  politics,  that  were  good  and  pure  men  in 
their  private  life?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Please  name  a few.  A.  S.  W.  Chase,  B.  H.  Clover,  S.  W.  Strong,  and  Salem 
Fouts.  I can  extend  this  list  if  you  desire. 

Q.  I meant  you  to  answer  that  question  in  reference  to  men  that  have  passed 
down  in  history.  A.  But  theories  are  generally  proved  by  experience,  and  his- 
tory is  the  experience  of  the  world. 

Q.  I hope  you  will  give  some  names  that  have  been  known  as  history.  A. 
History  generally  leaves  behind  ordinary,  every-day  failings  of  people,  and 
brings  down  to  us  their  better  actions  and  their  better  motives;  therefore,  it 
is  difficult  for  me  to  state  any  person  in  history  who  would  be  an  illustration 
of  my  idea  of  your  question. 

By  Judge  Webb:  Q.  You  said,  Mr.  Greer,  in  answer  to  a question  of  Mr. 
Senn,  that  you  knew  of  several  gentlemen  of  unimpeachable  moral  character 
who  would  resort  to  disreputable  and  improper  means  for  political  purposes; 
do  you  know  any  well-recognized  or  generally-acknowledged  Republican  that 
did  that?  A.  Probably  I do;  but  it  is  difficult  to  call  them  to  mind  at  this 
time. 

Q.  Can  you  think  of  any?  A.  I might  if  I had  some  time. 

Q.  The  fact  is,  that  that  class  of  men  and  politicians  are  a close  corpora- 
tion, and  don’t  tell  on  each  other,  do  they? 


DEMOCRATIC  REPORT. 


157 


Witness  was  excused  from  answering  this  question. — Ed.] 

“Conclusion. — Our  conclusions  drawn  from  the  foregoing  review  of  testi- 
mony are,  that  there  was  a conspiracy  on  the  part  of  some  one  to  do  certain 
things  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  the  ranks  of  the  Union  Labor  party  and 
adding  strength  to  the  Republican  party  in  the  political  campaign  of  the  fall 
of  1888. 

“The  Vidette  expose  was  the  first  step  in  that  line.  This  was  followed  by 
the  second  expose  and  the  preparation  of  the  box  of  dynamite,  which  would 
have  been  in  Winfield,  Kansas,  October  19,  had  it  not  prematurely  exploded 
in  Coffeyville. 

“We  are  further  of  the  opinion  that  C.  A.  Henrie  had  some  connection  with 
the  preparation  of,  and  delivered  said  box  at  Coffeyville,  to  be  shipped  by  ex- 
press to  Winfield  to  be  exploded  somewhere;  and  under  the  excitement 
following  the  explosion  a raid  would  probably  be  made  on  the  office  of  the 
Nonconformist. 

“We  are  further  of  the  opinion  that  Bion  S.  Hutchins  and  Ed.  P.  Greer 
were  cognizant  of  what  was  being  done,  if  not  direct  participants  of  the  same. 

“And  further,  that  no  man  could  have  been  appointed  Commissioner  of 
Labor  who  would  not  appoint  C.  A.  Henrie  to  a position  as  clerk  in  said  office. 

“And  that  said  Henrie  was  appointed  to  the  position  which  he  holds  to-day 
as  a reward  for  the  part  performed  by  him,  and  to  prevent  him  from  reveal- 
ing what  he  knows  of  the  affair  which  would  implicate  other  parties. 

Ezra  Carey,  Chairman. 

M.  Senn. 

G.  W.  Crumley. 

T.  M.  Templeton.” 

[Two  (perhaps  three)  of  the  above  committeemen  were  formerly  Republi- 
cans, and  cannot  be  said  to  hold  any  grudge  to  be  satisfied,  but  have  arrived 
at  these  conclusions  from  careful  and  mature  deliberation  after  examination 
of  the  evidence. — Ed.] 


REPORT  OF  SENATOR  EDWARD  CARROLL,  DEMOCRATIC  MEMBER  OF  COMMITTEE. 

“Topeka,  Kansas,  May  23,  1891. 

“Hon.  L.  U.  Humphrey,  Governor  of  the  State  of  Kansas  — Sir:  It  is  already 
a matter  of  public  knowledge  that  the  committee  appointed  to  investigate 
the  so-called  Coffeyville  expose,  has  been  unable  to  agree  upon  a report  which 
in  any  way  tends  to  fix  the  responsibility  for  that  affair  upon  anyone,  or  to 
solve  the  mystery  which  surrounds  it.  Three  reports  have  already  been  pre- 
pared and  signed;  one  by  the  entire  committee,  which  gives  a brief  history  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  investigation  has  been  conducted,  a description  of 
the  explosion,  and  some  of  the  surrounding  circumstances,  and  some  of  the 
theories  which  have  been  suggested  to  account  for  it;  another  by  the  Alliance 
members  of  the  committee,  which  has  been  given  to  the  public  through  the 
newspapers;  and  a third,  signed  by  the  Republican  members  of  the  committee. 
Eor  convenience,  I shall  hereafter  refer  to  the  last  two  as  the  Republican  and 
Alliance  reports  respectively. 

“I  agree  with  the  Republican  report  in  some  of  its  findings,  but  to  some 
of  the  conclusions  and  matters  stated  I do  not  wish  to  be  committed.  The 
Alliance  report  contains  some  things  to  which  I agree,  and  many  statements 
to  which  I cannot  conscientiously  subscribe. 


158 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


“This  Coffey ville  explosion  happened  in  the  year  1888.  It  was  charged 
upon  the  Republican  party  by  members  of  the  Union  Labor  party;  and  by 
members  of  the  Republican  party  it  was  charged  upon  the  Union  Labor 
party,  and  upon  the  National  Order'of  Yidettes  — a secret  political  organiza- 
tion which  then  existed  mostly  within  the  Union  Labor  party.  This  political 
party  (transformed  into  the  Alliance  party)  coming  into  power,  this  explosion 
and  the  charges  that  had  been  made  in  reference  to  it  were  considered  to  be 
of  sufficient  political  importance  to  warrant  a parliamentary  investigation,  at 
an  expense  of  many  thousands  of  dollars  to  the  people  of  the  State.  The  in- 
vestigation has  been  had.  No  good  has  been  done.  No  one  has  been  shown 
to  be  guilty,  and  those  who  claimed  to  know  so  much  before  the  investigation, 
when  put  upon  the  witness  stand,  knew  nothing  except  what  Mrs.  Grundy  had 
told  them. 

“The  general  report  states  truthfully,  that  this  was  a political  investiga- 
tion— a political  quarrel,  in  fact,  between  the  Republican  and  the  Alliance 
parties.  The  Democratic  party,  it  is  needless  to  say,  is  not  in  it.  Being  the 
only  Democratic  member  of  the  committee,  belonging  to  neither  of  the  in- 
terested parties,  having  no  political  friends  to  vindicate  or  enemies  to  punish, 
it  is  perhaps  unnecessary  for  me  to  say  that  I can  have  no  motive  or  purpose 
|in  this  matter  other  than  to  wrong  no  one  and  do  equal  and  exact  justice  to  all. 

“I  am  in  hearty  sympathy  with  the  Alliance  report  in  its  animadversions 
upon  certain  unconscionable  disciples  of  Ananias  who  deliberately  invent 
falsehoods  to  deceive  the  public  for  political  effect,  and  then  go  upon  the 
witness  stand  and  unblushingly  testify  to  their  own  shame.  There  should  be 
no  distinction  between  the  political  and  the  private  liar.  The  standard  of 
morality  should  certainly  be  as  high  in  those  matters  which  affect  the  public 
weal  as  in  those  which  relate  to  the  private  concerns  of  life. 

“A  vast  amount  of  evidence  was  introduced  in  the  endeavor  to  connect  the 
Republican  managers  of  1888  with  the  explosion,  and  while  there  was  some 
evidence,  generally  of  a hearsay  character,  which  seemed  to  point  in  that  di- 
rection, yet  it  was  not  sufficient,  in  my  judgment,  to  show  any  such  connec- 
tion, or  to  establish  any  of  the  charges  referred  to  in  the  resolutions  creating 
this  committee,  and  I therefore  agree  with  the  special  findings  in  the  Repub- 
lican report  numbered  one,  two,  three  and  four,  the  same  being  found  in  said 
report  under  the  head  of  “Special  Findings.” 

“ The  evidence  shows  that  Mr.  Henrie  was  an  associate  of  the  Chicago  an- 
archist, Parsons,  when  the  latter  was  in  Topeka;  that  he  was  hired  to  go  to 
New  York  and  Cincinnati,  in  the  interest  of  the  Republican  party,  to  help  dis- 
rupt the  Union  Labor  party,  to  which  he  ostensibly  belonged,  by  assisting  in 
organizing  and  keeping  in  the  field  the  United  Labor  party  and  ticket;  that 
he  also  aided  in  exposing  the  Order  of  Yidettes,  with  which  he  was  connected. 
It  would  seem  that  he  was  generally  engaged  in  the  business  of  betraying  his 
associates  for  hire,  whenever  he  had  an  opportunity. 

“The  evidence  of  the  witnesses,  Waldrop,  Mrs.  Cougher,  Grange,  and  French, 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  Henrie  might  be  connected  with  this  affair;  yet  I 
cannot  see  how  this  testimony,  indefinite  and  uncertain  as  it  is,  can  stand 
against  the  testimony  of  reputable  witnesses  like  McCray,  Scott,  and  Capper, 
who  swear  positively  that  Henrie  was  in  Topeka  on  the  day  of  the  explosion, 
and  the  testimony  of  Cummings,  Mrs.  Barlow,  Booth,  and  Judge  Reed,  all  in- 
dicating that  he  must  have  been  in  Topeka  on  that  day. 

“Considering  the  previous  character  and  associations  of  Mr.  Henrie,  his  ap- 
pointment to  a position  in  the  Labor  Bureau  would  seem  to  be  a suspicious 


DEMOCRATIC  REPORT. 


159 


circumstance.  He  certainly  ought  not  to  have  been  appointed  to  that  posi- 
tion, yet  that  bureau  seems,  from  the  evidence,  to  have  been  conducted  as  if 
it  were  a part  of  the  Republican  political  machine  instead  of  a State  depart- 
ment; and  from  the  standpoint  of  the  managers  who  have  of  late  years  been 
in  control  of  that  party,  it  no  doubt  seemed  fitting  that  he  should  be  rewarded 
for  the  services,  or  supposed  services,  rendered  by  him  to  the  Republican  party, 
to  which  I have  already  referred. 

“The  testimony  of  Leland  J.  Webb,  if  true,  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
there  was  an  unusual  pressure  brought  to  bear  to  secure  the  appointment  of 
Henrie.  I have  no  desire  to  comment  on  his  testimony  further  than  to  say 
that  there  were  circumstances  surrounding  the  case  which  somewhat  affect  its 
credibility. 

“There  is  absolutely  no  evidence  which  in  any  way  connects  the  organiza- 
tion known  as  the  National  Order  of  Videttes  with  this  explosion,  and  I agree 
with  the  Alliance  report  in  regard  to  that  matter.  I have  not  deciphered  and 
read  all  the  hieroglyphics  introduced  in  evidence  as  the  secret  work  of  this 
order  of  Videttes,  but  so  far  as  shown  by  the  testimony,  I have  discovered 
nothing  to  indicate  that  this  organization  is  any  more  revolutionary  and 
treasonable  than  that  very  exemplary  organization  known  as  the  Patriotic 
Sons  of  America,  and  some  others  that  might  be  mentioned.  The  charter 
and  initiation  fees  and  dues,  the  salaries  of  the  several  ‘Supreme  Cyclops,’ 
organizers,  lecturers,  etc.,  which  pertain  to  organizations  of  this  kind,  were 
no  doubt  one  of  the  main  objects  sought  in  the  organization  of  the  Videttes. 
The  worst  that  can  be  said  of  the  order,  and  that  is  bad  enough,  is  that  it  is 
a secret  political  society,  something  so  foreign  to  the  genius  of  our  Govern- 
ment that  it  is  hard  to  understand  how  any  intelligent  American  can  be  in- 
duced to  ally  himself  with  it.  This  is  the  one  country  where  secret  political 
organizations  have  no  apology  for  an  existence. 

“If  the  principles  upon  which  any  such  society  is  founded  are  good,  publish 
them  to  the  world;  if  they  are  bad,  the  sooner  they  are  repudiated  and  stamped 
out,  the  better  for  the  country. 

“In  conclusion,  I have  only  to  say  that  these  views  are  submitted,  leaving 
to  the  people  of  the  State  who  may  read  the  testimony  to  say  whether  my 
conclusions  are  correct  and  just,  or  otherwise. 

“Most  respectfully  yours,  Edward  Carroll, 

Senator  3d  District , and  Member  of  Committee .” 

[The  chief  recommendation  of  this  report  is  its  brevity.  It  should  be  stated 
here  that  all  the  committee  were  faithful  in  their  attendance  upon  its  sessions 
except  Senators  Mohler  and  Carroll,  who  seemed  to  take  little  or  no  interest 
in  the  matter.  Mr.  Carroll’s  report  contains  a statement  that  indicates  that 
he  felt  so  little  interest  as  to  cause  him  to  be  very  careless  in  reading  the 
printed  testimony;  hence  his  conclusions  are  of  very  little  value.  He  states 
that  Judge  Reed  is  one  of  the  witnesses  to  prove  the  presence  of  Henrie  in 
Topeka  on  Oct.  18.  Inasmuch  as  Judge  Reed’s  evidence  referred  to  the  19th 
and  not  to  the  18th,  it  will  be  seen  how  careless  the  Senator  was.  We  will  now 
invite  the  reader’s  attention  to  Judge  Webb’s  summary  of  the  case. 

Note. — Attention  is  here  called  to  a typographical  error  in  the  Senate  Jour- 
nal, p.  292,  where  the  record  makes  it  appear  that  the  Senate  was  acting 


160 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


upon  House  concurrent  resolution  No.  28,  instead  of  the  Coffeyville  resolu- 
tion, which  is  No.  23.  By  reference  to  the  House  Journal  ( pp.  352,  372),  it 
appears  that  No.  28  was  first  introduced  by  Mr.  Coons  on  February  9;  first 
read  in  the  House  February  10,  and  messaged  to  the  Senate  February  11  (Sen- 
ate Journal,  p.  291),  at  the  same  time  that  amendments  to  No.  23  were  mes- 
saged to  the  Senate,  (p.  292.)  The  Senate  never  acted  at  all  on  No.  28,  so  far 
as  its  record  shows,  and  Clerk  Stacey  has  entirely  omitted  to  mention  it  in  his 
index  to  House  concurrent  resolutions.  ( Senate  Journal,  p.  905.)  It  appears, 
however,  on  p.  653,  House  Journal,  that  the  Senate  concurred  in  No.  28.  There- 
fore, from  all  attendant  circumstances  preceding  and  following,  it  is  perfectly 
evident  that  No.  23  was  under  discussion,  and  acted  upon  instead  of  No.  28. 
( p.  292.)] 

We  will  close  this  chapter  with  the  following  from  one  of  the  attorneys. 


A BETTER  FROM  THE  TRENCHANT  PEN  OF  H.  G.  WEBB. 

Henry  Vincent , Esq.,  Winfield , Kas. : 

My  Dear  Sir  — Having  been  connected  with  the  legislative  investigation 
of  the  explosion  which  occurred  at  the  house  of  one  Mr.  TJpham,  at  Coffey- 
ville, Kansas,  in  October,  1888,  known  as  the  ‘‘Coffeyville  Dynamite  Investiga- 
tion,” and  having  given  careful  attention  to  the  evidence  produced  before  the 
committee  holding  the  same,  I did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  submit  to  the 
committee,  or  to  the  public,  views  which  I entertain  as  to  the  force  and  effect 
of  such  evidence,  and  the  conclusions  to  be  deduced  therefrom,  until  I had 
carefully  read  and  considered  the  report  made  thereon  by  Senator  Charles  H. 
Kimball,  Senator  J.  G.  Mohler,  and  Representative  C.  N.  Bishoff.  The  report 
by  them  signed,  under  date  of  May  9, 1891,  addressed  to  Hon.  Lyman  U.  Hum- 
phrey, Governor  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  is  so  wholly  at  variance  with  what  I 
conceive  to  be  fair  and  just  deductions  from  the  evidence;  so  thoroughly  im- 
pregnated with  specious  representations  and  assumptions;  so  full  of  garbled 
statements,  amounting  to  misrepresentation  of  the  evidence  referred  to,  and 
so  pregnant  of  pure  partisanship,  disclosing  as  it  does,  the  one  great  purpose 
on  the  part  of  him  who  framed,  and  of  all  who  signed  it,  to  shield,  protect  and 
vindicate  Governor  Humphrey,  Henry  Booth,  Bion  S.  Hutchins,  Ed.  F.  Greer, 
and  C.  A.  Henrie,  regardless  of  what  is,  or  is  shown  to  be,  the  actual  truth. 

Mr.  Humphrey  is  an  avowed  Republican;  Booth  and  Hutchins  were  chair- 
man and  secretary  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee;  Hon.  E.  P. 
Greer,  a prominent  Republican  partisan  and  official,  is  editor  and  publisher 
of  the  Winfibld  Courier , the  oracle  of  his  party  in  the  Arkansas  valley;  Sen- 
ators Kimball  and  Mohler,  either  of  whom  is  competent,  and  neither  of  whom 
would  be  unwilling  to  prepare  and  proclaim  as  true  the  sentiments  and  opin- 


WEBB’S  LETTER. 


161 


ions  embodied  in  said  report,  if  the  needs  of  the  party  should  require  it,  are 
Republicans,  and,  as  such,  zealous  and  unrelenting;  C.  N.  Bishoff,  a harmless, 
inoffensive  gentleman,  also  a Republican,  under  the  direction  and  dictation 
of  stronger  men  than  he,  such  as  Kimball  and  Mohler,  is  willing  to  subscribe 
to  that  which  he  supposes  to  be  of  interest  to  his  party.  Mr.  Henrie  will  be 
noticed  farther  on. 

For  the  reasons  mentioned,  I will  submit  some  views  and  opinions  gathered 
from  and  based  upon  the  evidence  given  to  and  before  the  committee  while 
investigating  the  afore-mentioned  explosion. 

First:  A formidable  political  organization,  of  upright  intentions,  actuated 
by  proper  motives,  designing  and  intending  to  accomplish  legitimate  ends 
promotive  of  public  interests  and  to  subserve  the  general  welfare,  will  employ 
only  such  means  and  agencies  as  the  sober  judgment  and  good  conscience  of 
decent  citizens  will  approve  and  respect. 

Second:  A party  intent  upon  perpetuating  its  rule  and  dominion,  regarding 
that  as  the  paramount  purpose  to  be  achieved,  will  act  upon  th3  principle  that 
the  end  justifies  the  means. 

Whenever  a party  is  wanting  in  regard  for  justice  and  right,  as  such,  it  is 
the  logic  of  history  that  it  intrusts  the  inanagement  and  conduct  of  its  po- 
litical campaigns  to  the  keeping  and  direction  of  sagacious,  unscrupulous 
and  unconscionable  partisans,  whose  peculiar  characteristics  induce  them  to 
employ  the  most  daring,  dangerous,  disreputable,  detestable,  unscrupulous 
and  villainous  men  and  measures  within  their  reach  which  they  can  command. 
History  also  proves  that  political  organizations  actuated  by  thoroughly  self- 
ish and  mercenary  motives  have  not  failed  to  gather  around  them  characters 
possessing  in  a large  degree  qualities,  the  use  of  which  tends  to  defeat  the  le- 
gitimate aims  and  purposes  of  well  and  honestly-conducted  governments. 

The  explosion  at  Coffeyville  disabled  and  crippled  for  all  time  and  nearly 
destroyed  the  life  of  a respectable  woman  and  her  daughter.  No  one  pre- 
tends that  the  persons  who  are  responsible  therefor  designed  the  explosion 
should  there  occur.  Mr.  Upham,  at  whose  house  it  did  take  place,  and  whose 
wife  and  daughter  are  the  physical  sufferers  on  account  thereof,  was  the  agent 
to  whom  the  explosive  was  delivered  for  shipment.  His  residence  being 
nearer  the  depot  than  his  office,  and  the  train  upon  which  the  shipment  was 
to  have  been  made  leaving  for  the  west  in  the  night-time,  induced  him,  as  a 
matter  of  convenience,  to  remove  the  explosive  to  his  home.  The  purpose  for 
which  said  explosive  was  designed,  the  end  intended  to  be  effected  thereby,  and 
the  persons  connected  therewith,  are  the  important  matters,  to  ascertain  which, 
the  dynamite  investigation  was  had.  No  legitimate  purpose  has  been  sug- 
gested for  which  the  explosive  was  intended.  The  person  leaving  it  with 
Mr.  Upham,  then  calling  himself  P.  Jason,  is  not  known  either  at  Coffeyville 


162 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


or  Winfield  ( by  that  name),  nor  can  he  be  learned  of  elsewhere.  If  he  were  a 
veritable  P.  Jason,  and  the  explosive  had  been  designed  for  a lawful  purpose, 
and  the  consignee  by  him  named  resided  at  Winfield,  or  had  directed  express 
matter  to  be  addressed  to  him  there,  some  inquiry  would  have  been  made  by 
him,  or  on  his  behalf,  at  the  express  office  to  which  he  had  directed  his  ship- 
ment to  be  made;  as  in  such  event  no  blame  could  have  attached  to  either 
consignor  or  consignee,  for  neither  could  have  intended  Mr.  Upham  would 
remove  the  explosive  from  his  office  to  his  residence,  nor  would  the  consignor, 
if  actuated  by  good  faith,  have  represented  the  box  to  have  contained  medi- 
cines in  glass  bottles,  nor  would  Mr.  Upham,  had  he  known  the  real  character 
of  the  express  matter,  have  endangered  the  life  of  himself  and  family  by  re- 
moving it  to  and  storing  it  within  his  residence. 

We,  therefore,  are  compelled  to  account  for  the  conduct  of  P.  Jason  upon 
another  than  upright  purpose  ; to  do  this,  it  is  pertinent  to  inquire  who  might 
hope  to  derive  benefit  and  advantage  by  an  improper  use  of  dangerous,  yea , 
deadly  agencies:  In  October,  1888,  an  earnest  political  campaign  was  rag- 

ing, upon  the  one  side  characterized  by  an  unbending  purpose  to  continue 
the  reign  of  those  who,  for  years  theretofore,  had  exercised  official  authority 
for  partisan  purposes  and  personal  aggrandizement  in  utter  disregard  of  the 
rights  of  the  masses  and  the  material  interests  of  the  public  ; upon  the  other, 
by  an  inflexible  will  and  honest  purpose  to  throw  off  unwholesome  restraints, 
and  to  secure  a recognition  of  the  just  complaints  of  a deeply-injured  and 
sorely-oppressed  people. 

The  contest  in  Cowley  county  was  earnest,  thorough,  bitter,  and  acrimoni- 
ous. Of  those  who  were  sanguine,  active  and  alert  upon  the  side  of  the  party 
then  in  power,  were  the  editor  of  the  Courier , and  the  members  of  the  Cowley 
County  Central  Committee  ; among  those  who  were  actively  opposed  to  Re- 
publican policy  and  tactics  were  the  Vincents,  who  owned,  edited  and  con- 
trolled the  American  Nonconformist,  whose  editor-in-chief  is  a bold,  fearless 
and  vigorous  writer.  In  his  editorials  he  discussed  questions  of  governmental 
policy  and  political  economy  earnestly,  thoroughly,  and  learnedly  ; he  ex- 
posed the  pernicious  practices  and  policy  of  the  party  to  which  he  was  op- 
posed so  completely  and  unmistakably,  that  he  became  and  was  offensive  to 
Republican  manipulators  and  falsifiers.  The  Nonconformist  was  by  them  con- 
sidered an  obstacle  in  their  way,  and  regarded  as  dangerous  to  Republican  suc- 
cess. The  vote  of  Cowley  county  was  considered  an  important  factor  in  that 
campaign,  in  both  the  State  and  congressional  contests.  To  control  it,  so  as 
to  secure  thereof  a large  Republican  majority,  was  considered  important  by 
Republican  candidates  and  managers,  and  Greer  believed  his  securing  the 
post  office  at  Winfield  depended  upon  their  success  in  that  direction. 

The  Republican  State  Central  Committee,  with  its  secretary,  consisting  as 


WEBB'S  LETTER. 


163 


it  did  of  earnest  partisans  of  enlarged  experience  in  furthering  the  ends  of 
that  party,  conceived  it  necessary  to  employ  measures  adequate  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  desired  end;  whether  such  means  were  decent,  commendable 
or  infamous,  was  immaterial.  The  important  thing  with  them  was,  that  the 
means  should  be  such  as  would  preserve  Republican  ascendancy  in  Cowley 
county.  The  Courier , therefore,  charged  the  editor  of  the  Nonconformist  and 
their  political  adherents  with  teaching  and  advocating  doctrines  calculated 
to  incite  disorder  in  the  State,  disobedience  to  and  resistance  of  its  constitu- 
tional authority  and  legal  requirements.  It  charged  that  they  were  traitors, 
engaged  in  promulgating  doctrines  of  treason  against  the  government  of  the 
United  States;  and  thinking  to  im- 
press others  with  the  truthfulness  of 
said  charges,  the  Courier , upon  the 
4th  day  of  October,  1888,  published 
what  is  called  an  expose  of  the  se- 
cret work  of  the  “National  Order  of 
Yidettes,”  which  is  an  organization 
consisting  of  men  associated  to- 
gether for  reformatory  purposes 
only,  pledged  to  concert  of  action 
for  the  correction  of  political  abuses, 
the  maintenance  of  the  right,  and  to 
secure  an  honest  administration  of 
the  government,  both  State  and  na- 
tional. 

It  is  composed  of  men  from  all 
political  parties,  whose  sense  of  duty 
and  of  right  is  sufficiently  strong  to 
induce  them  to  withdraw  from  the 
political  organization  with  which 
they  respectively  formerly  affiliated, 
to  the  end  that  a correction  and 
reformation  of  the  evils  tolerated, 
practiced  and  sanctioned  by  the  old 
parties  might  through  their  efforts 
be  effected. 

That  an  explosion  occurred  at  Coffeyville,  disastrous  in  its  results,  is  indis- 
putable. That  some  one  is  responsible  therefor,  is  equally  manifest.  That  C. 
A.  Henrie  is  fully  competent  and  thoroughly  equipped  to  engage  in  any  vil- 
lainous undertaking,  is  no  less  doubtful.  That  Ed.  P.  Greer  and  the  Cowley 
County  Republican  Central  Committee,  for  political  purposes,  arranged  with 


GEO.  W.  POOBMAN. 

“I’ll  follow  you  to  your  death,  d — n you.”— 
Poorman  to  Vincent , in  1888. 


164 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


George  W.  Poorman  to  surrender  his  manhood,  violate  his  oath  and  betray 
the  confidence  of  his  fellows,  intending  thereby  to  destroy  the  influence  of  the 
Vincents  and  their  paper,  is  established  by  the  evidence  of  Greer  and  the 
members  of  said  committee.  Their  testimony,  being  against  themselves,  will, 
I suppose,  be  believed. 

That  their  effort  of  October  4, 1888,  was  abortive,  only  tended  to  exasperate 
Greer  and  those  in  that  behalf  acting  with  him,  and  they  having  commended 
Poorman  to  the  charities  and  guardianship  of  Booth  and  Hutchins,  by  means 
thereof  secured  active  aid  from  the  State  Central  Committee  and  its  tools, 
Henrie  and  McCray.  Until  C.  A.  Henrie  entered  upon  the  service  of  Booth 
and  Hutchins,  he  had  been  generally  known  as  an  anarchist;  was  the  intimate 
friend  of  Parsons,  of  Chicago  fame;  presided  at  public  meetings  which  were 
addressed  by  Parsons,  and  is  shown  to  have  taken  lessons  from  him  in  the 
manufacture  of  dynamite. 

Upon  October  9,  1888,  he  visited  Winfield,  calling  at  the  office  of  the  Non- 
conformist and  of  the  Courier ; registered  at  the  Bobbitt  House  under  the 
name  of  J.  O.  Brown,  of  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  having  no  business  other  than  to 
learn  what  he  could  as  to  the  political  situation  there.  He  told  Greer  his 
mission  was  to  make  inquiries  concerning  his  friends,  the  Vincents.  He  was 
then  in  the  employ  of  Booth  and  Hutchins,  and  his  only  inquiries  after  the 
Vincents,  so  far  as  known,  were  made  of  Greer.  He  denies  having  been  at 
Coffeyville  upon  October  18,  1888,  but  told  Mrs.  Cougher  at  what  hotel  he 
stopped  at  Coffeyville.  The  hotel  register  of  that  date  shows  two  strangers 
to  have  registered  there.  Two  gentlemen  were  at  Valeda  in  the  after  part  of 
that  day,  having  arrived  upon  a freight  train  from  the  west,  one  of  whom  was, 
by  the  agent  at  that  point,  recognized  in  the  person  of  C.  A.  Henrie.  Inter- 
mediate the  arrival  of  the  freight  train  at  and  the  departure  of  the  passenger 
train  from  Valeda,  they  were  at  and  about  the  depot.  The  passenger  train 
upon  which  they  departed  would,  by  way  of  Nevada,  Pleasant  Hill,  and  Kan- 
sas City,  Kansas,  reach  Topeka  on  the  day  following. 

At  the  instance  of  Greer,  Cooper,  and  Fry,  Poorman  procured  a copy  of  the 
Vidette  ritual,  and  a knowledge  of  the  secret  work  of  the  Videttes,  the  former 
of  which  Poorman  delivered,  and  the  latter  of  which  he  betrayed  and  disclosed 
to  Greer,  from  which,  and  the  information  thus  obtained,  Greer  made  the  pub- 
lication of  October  4th. 

Poorman’s  perfidy,  in  that  connection,  awakened  within  him  a sense  of 
shame,  which  inspired  him  with  fear  of  personal  injury,  but  Greer,  Cooper 
and  Fry  came  to  his  relief,  escorted  him  to  a hotel,  guarded  him  over  night, 
supplied  him  with  means  upon  which  to  travel,  and  gave  him  a letter  of  intro- 
duction and  commended  him  therein  to  the  confidence  and  favor  of  Booth. 
Poorman  left  Winfield  for  Topeka  upon  October  5th,  went  to  Topeka,  and  re- 


WEBB'S  LETTER. 


165 


ported  to  Booth,  as  was  said  to  Greer  by  Booth  or  Hutchins;  see  page  69. 
Intermediate  the  5th  and  11th  of  October,  to  wit,  on  the  9th,  C.  A.  Henrie  ap- 
peared in  Winfield,  evincing  great  anxiety  concerning  Greer’s  publication  of 
the  4th;  he  was  still  in  the  employ  of  Booth  and  Hutchins.  Poorman  left  for 
Topeka  on  the  5th,  the  day  succeeding  said  publication,  and  four  days  before 
Henrie’s  appearance  at  Winfield.  I suggest,  Greer’s  letter  and  Poorman’s  re- 
port to  Booth  clearly  account  for  Henrie’s  visit  to  Winfield  and  his  interview 
with  those  whom  he  found  at  the  office  of  the  Nonconformist , and  his  anxious 
inquiries  concerning  the  Vincents  then  by  him  made  of  Greer.  Henrie  left 
Winfield  that  same  day, 'as  he  says,  for  Topeka,  after  which  Mr.  Greer  was  sum- 
moned to  Topeka,  by  telegram  from  Booth,  to  which  summons  he  at  once  re- 
sponded. I here  inquire,  Was  that  telegram  sent  by  Booth  because  of  Henrie’s 
report  to  him,  upon  his  return  from  Winfield? 

That  Greer  answered  Booth’s  telegram  in  person,  and,  arriving  at  Topeka 
about  noon  of  the  12th,  immediately  reported  at  the  quarters  of  the  State 
Central  Committee,  appears  at  page  75,  in  Greer’s  testimony.  He  saw,  at  the 
committee  rooms,  Booth,  Hutchins,  and  Prouty,  and,  after  talking  with  Booth 
and  Hutchins,  was  taken  to  a room  in  the  hotel,  then  occupied  by  Henrie,  to 
whom  he  was  by  Hutchins  introduced. 

Greer  published  the  first  expose  October  4th. 

Poorman  left  Winfield  for  Topeka  October  5th,  with  letter  of  introduction 
to  Booth.  Henrie  appeared  at  Winfield  October  9th,  interested  only  in  the 
subject-matter  of  said  expose  and  the  condition  and  behavior  of  the  Vincents. 

Upon  the  10th  or  11th  Booth  called  Greer  to  Topeka,  where  he  arrived 
about  noon  upon  the  12th,  and  the  only  subject  of  interest  and  conversation 
between  Booth,  Hutchins,  Greer  and  Henrie  was  that  of  the  National  Order 
of  Videttes,  the  connection  of  the  Vincents  therewith,  the  exposures  of  their 
ceremonies  and  secrets  which  had  theretofore  been  and  were  thereafter  to  be 
made.  Read  Greer’s  testimony. 

Was  Henrie  at  Winfield  upon  October  9th?  No  hotel  register  shows  that 
he  was.  Greer,  E.  S.  Moore  and  Henry  Vincent  say  he  was;  Henrie  himself 
says  he  was.  He  wrote  the  name  J.  O.  Brown,  as  representing  himself,  upon 
the  register  at  the  Bobbitt  House.  So,  if  we  were  dependent  upon  Henrie’s 
sayings  and  doings  for  the  ascertainment  of  the  truth,  we  could  not  satisfac- 
torily determine  it.  If  what  he  says  be  true,  that  which  he  wrote  is  a lie.  If 
what  he  wrote  be  true,  then  what  he  says  is  a lie.  The  truth,  however,  regard- 
less of  either  his  sayings  or  doings,  is  demonstrated  by  the  sworn  statements 
of  Greer,  Henry  Vincent,  and  E.  S.  Moore.  Was  Henrie  at  Coffeyville  on  Octo- 
ber 18th?  He  says  he  was  not.  He  said  to  Mrs.  Cougher  he  was,  and  at  what 
hotel  he  stopped.  The  register  of  that  date  does  not  show  his  name,  but  does 
show  those  of  each  of  two  strangers  as  guests  of  the  hotel.  The  fact  that  he  did 
—10 


166 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


not  register  his  real  name  in  nowise  disproves  his  having  been  there,  for  it  is 
clearly  manifest  that  he  is  capable  of  representing  his  name  to  be  other  than 
C.  A.  Henrie.  What  he  says  as  a witness  is  wholly  irreconcilable  with  what  he 
said  to  Mrs.  Cougher.  The  register  of  the  Coffeyville  hotel,  Henrie’s  state- 
ment to  Mrs.  Cougher  that  he  was  at  a hotel  there,  the  appearance  of  two 
strangers  in  the  after  part  of  that  day  at  Yaleda,  their  departure  therefrom 
upon  the  evening  passenger,  and  the  recognition  of  C.  A.  Henrie  as  one  of 
them  by  the  Yaleda  agent,  Mr.  Waldrop,  much  more  satisfactorily  prove  Hen- 
rie’s presence  at  Coffeyville  than  his  bare  denial  refutes  the  accusation  that  he 
was  there. 

If  it  be  true  that  the  measure  of  credit  which  should  be  accorded  to  one’s 
statements  depends,  to  some  extent,  upon  the  known  habits,  practices  and 
business  relations  of  the  one  whose  statements  are  involved,  I maintain, 
applying  such  test  in  determining  my  last  question,  “Was  Henrie  at  Coffey- 
ville?” that  the  evidence  clearly  preponderates  against  him,  and  conclusively 
establishes  that  he  is  wholly  undeserving  of  faith  and  credit;  that,  notwith- 
standing his  denial  thereof,  he  was,  upon  the  18th  day  of  October,  1888,  at 
Coffeyville,  and  then  delivered  to  Mr.  Upham  the  package  which  afterward 
exploded  at  the  agent’s  residence.  Why  was  Henrie  then  at  Coffeyville?  If 
for  a proper  purpose,  there  would  have  been  no  reason  for  withholding  the 
fact  of  his  presence,  and  the  purpose  thereof.  The  facts  that  he  did  not  reg- 
ister his  real  name,  the  false  statement  as  to  the  contents  of  the  box,  that  it 
was  consigned  to  one  Louden,  at  Winfield,  conclusively  establish  that  the  end 
sought  to  be  effected  by  the  use  of  the  explosive  was  to  occasion  a demon- 
stration at  Winfield,  where  the  political  fight  was  hottest,  and  where  the  sup- 
pression of  the  Nonconformist  was,  by  the  active  Republicans,  earnestly 
desired.  You  will  ask,  “How  does  it  appear  that  such  results  would  flow,  or 
might  have  flown,  from  the  shipment  of  dynamite  to  L.  Louden?” 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  P.  Jason  requested  the  agent  to  direct  the 
box,  and  gave  him  its  destination  and  name  of  consignee;  also,  that  Mr.  Up- 
ham, the  agent, "was  quite  deaf.  Mrs.  Leo  Yincent  was  a Bowden.  That  name, 
when  given  to  the  agent,  may  have  been,  and,  owing  to  his  defective  hearing, 
probably  was,  “understood  as  Louden.  That  the  explosive  was  intended  to 
play  an  important  part  with  the  Yincents  and  their  paper,  is,  I think,  clearly 
apparent.  Henrie’s  visit  to  Winfield  October  9th,  Greer’s  talk  with  Burk- 
halter  in  front  of  Beard’s  store  on  the  10th  or  11th,  his  trip  to  Topeka  upon 
the  12th,  his  consultation  with  Booth,  Hutchins  and  Henrie  while  there,  with 
his  statement  to  Prof.  Yincent  at  the  Courier  office  on  the  18th,  that  he  “would 
have  something  interesting”  for  him,  are  matters  needing  explanations  which 
are  yet  wanting  (if  those  parties  are  blameless),  which  even  Kimball  and 
Mohler  have  not  furnished.  Immediately  after  the  explosion,  J.  W.  Hen- 


WEBB'S  LETTER . 


167 


thorne  charged  it  upon  the  State  Central  Committee  and  E.  P.  Greer,  for 
political  effect;  p.  408.  Dr.  Thomas  Rude,  a prominent  Cowley  county  Repub- 
lican, and  intimate  with  Greer,  told  Hon.  Ben.  Clover  that  he  was  candidly  of 
opinion  that  the  whole  matter  was  a concocted  scheme  of  Ed.  Greer’s  and 
other  fellows  for  political  purposes;  that  that  had  always  been  his  impression 
of  the  matter;  p.  416.  That  persons,  who  are  otherwise  good  citizens,  will 
say  and  do  things  in  the  interest  of  the  end  and  purposes  of  a political  party 
of  a character  which  they  would  neither  say  nor  do  in  futherance  of  other  ends, 
is  shown  by  the  evidence  of  E.  P.  Greer;  page  580. 

The  election  of  1888  resulted  in  the  choice  of  Lyman  U.  Humphrey  for 
Governor.  After  the  election  was  over,  those  who  had  supported  him,  and 
thought  because  thereof  they  had  some  claim  upon  him,  importuned  him  to 
appoint  friends  and  favorites  of  theirs  to  places  within  his  gift. 

At  that  time  F.  H.  Betton  was  Commissioner  of  the  Labor  Bureau,  having 
been  appointed  thereto  by  Governor  Martin.  His  term  of  office  was  two 
years.  There  was  considerable  competition  for  the  place.  Among  aspirants 
thereto  were  D.  G.  Jones  and  J.  G.  Cougher  of  Shawnee  county,  the  then  in- 
cumbent, Betton,  of  Wyandotte  county,  and  Frank  A.  A’Neal,  the  ‘‘Old 
Soldiers’”  candidate;  there  may  have  been  others.  (See  p.  202;  a id  L.  J. 
Webb’s  evidence,  pp.  286,  287.)  Mr.  Cougher  was  clerk  under  Betton  for  some- 
thing over  five  years  prior  to  November  16, 1890.  He  then  quit  work  because 
Mr.  Betton  called  for  his  resignation. 

Cougher,  that  year,  was  assessed  by  the  Republican  State  Central  Commit- 
tee for  campaign  purposes,  which  he  refused  to  pay.  His  resignation  was 
called  for  that  his  position  might  be  given  to  a printer  by  the  name  of  White, 
who  paid  $50  therefor.  Cougher  was  twice  notified  by  John  H.  Smith,  secre- 
tary, of  the  amount  assessed  to  him,  and  twice  he  refused  to  pay. 

Henrie  began  work  in  the  Labor  office  in  March  or  April,  1889.  D.  O.  Mc- 
Cray was  then  executive  clerk  to  Governor  Humphrey.  In  August,  1889,  he 
called  at  the  Labor  office  several  times  to  see  Mr.  Henrie  concerning  affidavits 
which  the  latter  was  to  furnish ; this  was  after  the  interview  had  by  the  Gov- 
ernor at  the  executive  office  with  Greer  and  Hackney  concerning  the  charges 
of  complicity  upon  the  part  of  Humphrey,  Greer,  Booth,  Hutchins  and  Hen- 
rie in  the  explosion  at  Coffeyville.  It  was  also  after  prominent  Republicans 
insisted  that  such  charges  should  not  longer  remain  unnoticed,  but  that,  if 
they  could,  they  should  be  refuted;  correspondence  between  Gov.  Humphrey 
and  W.  E.  Doud,  Esq.,  page  207.  On  July  9,  1889,  Governor  Humphrey,  in 
speaking  upon  the  subject,  said  to  Mr.  Doud  : “In  due  time,  a week  or  so 
hence,  as  soon  as  the  material  can  be  gathered  and  collated,  a general  reply 
will  be  made  to  the  whole  matter,  not  over  my  name,  however,  but  by  one  of 
the  prominent  parties  charged.”  Further  on,  he  says:  “When  the  character- 


168 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


less,  irresponsible  scoundrels  making  the  charges  shall  have  said  all  they 
have  to  say,  and  offer  their  evidence,  if  they  have  any,  it  will  be  our  time  to 
reply.”  Whom  does  he  mean  by  characterless,  irresponsible  scoundrels? 
Can  he  refer  to  the  Vincents?  If  so,  he  does  not  believe  the  sworn  state- 
ments of  Greer  or  his  friend,  Hon.  W.  P.  Hackney,  each  of  whom  has  for 
years  been  in  the  front  of  Cowley  county  Republicans;  each  in  his  testimony 
says,  in  speaking  of  the  Vincents,  “ they  were  peaceable,  quiet  gentlemen,  be- 
haved as  good  citizens,  were  honest,  temperate,  and  industrious;”  Hack- 
ney’s testimony,  page  327.  “The  personal  character  of  the  Vincents  is  good; 
I have  so  stated  ; I believe  conduct  flows  from  character;”  Greer’s  evidence, 
p.  581.  A general  reply  to  the  whole  matter  was  to  have  been  made,  how,  and 
by  whom?  The  manner  of  the  reply  was,  to  call  a halt,  and  publish  the  facts 
in  the  case;  this  was  to  be  done  by  Greer;  Humphrey’s  evidence,  pp.  220,  221. 
Greer  was  to  publish  the  facts  concerning  the  explosion,  and  by  them  show 
who  ivas , and  who  was  not , chargeable  therewith.  It  was  then  and  there  as- 
sumed that  Greer  knew  the  facts,  or  had  confidential  relations  with  those  who 
did,  and,  therefore,  could  make  them  known.  This  interview  was  in  July,  ’89  ; 
Henrie  was  not  present  thereat,  nor  does  it  appear  that  Greer  had  corre- 
sponded with  him  at  any  time  theretofore,  after  October,  1888,  but,  upon  the 
contrary,  Greer  swears  he  had  not  ; still,  the  trio  then  consulting  determined 
he  was  adequate  to  supply  that  which  Greer  was  unable  to  furnish.  Hackney, 
a lawyer  of  skill  and  ability,  the  friend  of  Greer,  and  a warm  supporter  of 
the  Governor,  had  neither  time  nor  inclination  to  prepare  affidavits  for  Henrie 
to  verify,  or  have  verified,  so  Leland  J.  Webb,  a frequent  caller  at  the  execu- 
tive office,  and  friend  of  Greer’s,  was,  by  the  latter,  suggested  as  a suitable 
person  to  prepare  them,  and  the  Governor  was  to  see  Webb  upon  the  subject; 
see  evidence  of  Greer  and  Humphrey. 

The  Governor  remembers  vaguely,  just  barely  remembers,  that  he  did  have 
a talk  with  Webb  concerning  the  matter,  but  is  oblivious  of  what  was  said  be- 
tween them,  although  the  matter  was  of  sufficient  importance  to  induce  the 
Governor  to  call  Greer  from  Winfield  to  Topeka,  that  they  might  agree  upon 
a plan  of  exculpating  themselves  and  vindicating  their  party  from  the  charges 
preferred  against  them,  as  was  done  by  himself,  Greer,  and  Hackney.  He 
does  not  remember  anything  he  said  or  did  in  furtherance  of  that  plan.  Hop- 
ing to  aid  his  treacherous  and  defective  memory,  Webb  was  called,  and,  as  a 
witness,  related  the  conversation  between  himself  and  the  Governor,  as  fol- 
lows: “Governor  Humphrey  called  me  into  his  private  office  and  said  he  had 
conversed  with  Hackney  and  Greer  about  that  dynamite  outrage;  that  they 
had  gone  away  and  could  not  come  back,  but  had  agreed  I should  write  some 
affidavits.  I asked,  What  ones?  He  said,  ‘Affidavits  which  that  fellow  in  the 
Labor  Bureau  was  to  make.’  I asked,  What  fellow?  He  said,  ‘Henrie.’  I 


WEBB'S  LETTER. 


169 


said,  Henrie?  Henrie?  what  Henrie?  He  said,  ‘That  Henrie  who  was  said  to 
have  been  connected  with  that  dynamite  outrage  down  in  Coffey  ville.’  I said, 
I do  not  know  him;  did  not  know  he  was  over  in  the  Labor  Bureau;  that  I 
did  not  know  this  administration  was  making  that  kind  of  appointments.  He 
said,  ‘Leland,  we  had  to  do  it?  I said,  I thought  Frank  A.  A’Neal  was  to  have 
that  place.  He  said,  ‘These  charges  are  very  serious;  they  affect  me  person- 
ally, Mr.  Greer,  and  my  friends,  and  we  had  to  do  it.  Hackney  and  Greer  have 
gone  away  and  cannot  come  back,  and  I want  you  to  draw  these  affidavits.’ 
I said  I was  not  in  much  of  a hurry;  that  I thought  it  an  outrage  that  a man 
like  Henrie  should,  under  a Republican  administration,  be  appointed  to  a po- 
sition of  that  kind  over  an  old  soldier  like  Frank  A.  A’Neal;  that  Henrie  was 
not  even  a Republican,  but  was  an  anarchist;  that  it  would  make  no  difference 
what  affidavit  he  should  make,  that  no  one  would  believe  him.  I declined  to 
draw  the  affidavits,  and  bade  the  Governor  good-bye.”  Webb  gave  this  evi- 
dence upon  March  9,  1891.  It  is  either  true  or  false.  The  Governor  was 
again  called  as  a witness  on  April  1,  1891  (after  Webb’s  evidence  had  been 
printed  and  made  public),  but  his  attention  was  not  directed  to  the  evidence 
given  by  Webb,  nor  was  he  asked  to  give  the  conversation  had  between  him 
and  Webb,  which  in  his  first  evidence  he  admitted  he  had,  but  which  he  was  un- 
able to  relate.  If  the  conversation  were  had  under  such  circumstances  and 
were  of  the  character  given  by  Webb,  it  could  not  have  been  forgotten,  nor 
could  Gov.  Humphrey  have  been  oblivious  thereof.  Hence,  his  failure  to  con- 
tradict it,  his  alleged  inability  to  repeat  substantially  what  was  said  between 
him  and  Webb,  must  be  taken  as  an  assent,  upon  his  part,  to  Webb’s  version 
of  the  conversation.  Who  were  the  we  who  had  to  do  it?  Why  was  it  neces- 
sary for  Bion  S.  Hutchins  to  request  of  the  Governor  that  he  give  Henrie  a 
clerkship  ? 

The  charges  against  Humphrey,  Greer,  Booth  and  others  were,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Governor,  “very  serious,”  and  affected  him,  Greer,  and  the  Gov- 
ernor’s friends.  In  substance,  the  Governor  said:  Booth,  Hutchins,  Greer, 
Henrie  and  thyself  are  charged  with  a high  crime;  my  friends  are  becoming 
uneasy,  and,  like  Mr.  Doud,  think  we  should  answer  and  refute  those  charges, 
if  in  our  power  to  do  so.  Hackney,  Greer  and  myself,  in  consultation, 
arranged  to  do  so;  and,  notwithstanding  I am  a soldier,  and  it  is  the  declared 
purpose  of  our  party,  of  which  in  the  State  I am  the  head,  to  give  soldiers 
the  preference  as  to  place  and  position,  to  enable  us  to  do  so  (vindicate  our- 
selves) we  had  to  ignore  the  claims  of  an  old  soldier,  in  the  person  of  Frank 
A.  A’Neal,  turn  our  backs  upon  our  promises  and  give  the  lie  to  our  assur- 
ances, and  place  in  a lucrative  position  a scalawag,  an  anarchist,  and  a man 
who,  in  the  language  of  Bion'S.  Hutchins,  “we  would  not  trust;”  see  evidence 
of  Mrs.  Lease;  a man  who,  while  doing  our  bidding,  denies  his  identity, 


170 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


passes  and  registers  under  an  assumed  name,  and  that  we  might  suitably  re- 
ward him  we  provided  for  an  extra  clerkship  in  the  Labor  office,  and  appro- 
priated $2,000  of  the  people’s  money  in  excess  of  former  appropriations  on 
account  of  service  in  said  office.  “But,”  says  the  Governor,  “Henrie  had  been 
connected  with  the  labor  organization,  and  his  appointment  may  please  them; 
hence  we  had  to  do  it.”  Henrie’s  appointment  was  not  requested  by  any  labor 
organization,  nor  by  the  representative  of  any  one  of  them,  unless  the  Repub- 
lican State  Central  Committee,  with  Republican  candidates  and  political  har- 
lots, persistently  engaged  in  defaming  good  citizens  by  criminal  means, 
endangering  human  life,  and  in  outraging  common  decency,  may  be  denomi- 
nated a labor  organization.  None  but  those  who  supported  Humphrey  asked 
Henrie’s  appointment,  and  of  them  the  Governor  only  remembers  Hutchins. 

If  neither  the  Governor  nor  any  of  the  persons  accused  with  him  had  inter- 
viewed Henrie  as  to  his  ability  to  exculpate  them,  as  well  as  himself,  by 
making  known  the  facts  pertaining  to  the  explosion,  why  did  the  Governor, 
Greer  and  Hackney  determine  that  Henrie  should  furnish  the  proof  necessary 
to  their  deliverance?  or  did  they  agree  among  themselves  that  Henrie  was 
the  man  upon  whom  to  call  when  closely  pressed,  because  from  their  ac- 
quaintance and  transactions  with  him  they  knew  him  to  be,  as  he  said  to 
Cougher  he  was , able  to  swear  to  anything?  (Mrs.  Cougher’s  evidence.) 

Why,  in  reply  to  Cougher’s  statement  to  Henrie,  “I  do  not  believe  you  will 
get  a job,”  did  Henrie  say,  “I  will;  they  dare  not  refuse  me  ”?  p.  212. 

Who  were  they  f He  must  have  meant  those  who  could  give  and  had  prom- 
ised to  secure  to  him  employment.  “We,”  when  used  by  the  Governor,  and 
“ they ,”  when  used  by  Henrie,  are  synonymous,  and  mean  Humphrey,  the 
Republican  State  Central  Committee,  and  their  friends  who  aided  the  Repub- 
cans  and  had  knowledge  of  their  secret  management  in  1888.  They  only 
could  give  or  influence  the  giving  of  a place  under  Governor  Humphrey’s  ad- 
ministration; the  power  then  behind  the  throne,  which  was  greater  than  the 
throne,  consisted  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee,  Bion  S.  Hutch- 
ins, and  Ed.  P.  Greer.  Why  were  they  afraid  Henrie  would  go  back  on  them? 
Why  was  Henrie  so  confident  that  they  would  not,  dare  not , refuse  him?  A 
full  response  to  either  will  be  a complete  answer  to  both  these  inquiries. 
Each  was  too  well  informed  as  to  and  concerning  the  conduct  of  the  others. 
Booth*  Hutchins,  Greer,  and  Henrie,  by  reason  of  their  confederation  con- 
cerning and  active  participancy  in  the  dynamite  scheme  previous  to  the 
explosion,  and  Humphrey,  by  having  been  informed  thereof  afterwards, 
occupied  dangerous  ground.  The  public  was  aroused,  editors  were  getting 
uneasy,  fears  were  awakened.  The  Governor  was  irritated  that  a Republican 
like  Mr.  Doud  should  think  him  guilty,  and  dare  to  suggest  that  he  should 
vindicate  himself  against  what,  in  the  language  of  the  Governor,  were  serious 


WEBB'S  LETTER. 


171 


charges,  of  which  Doud,  with  others  from  whom  he  received  letters,  written, 
as  he  says,  along  the  line*of  those  from  Doud,  believed  him  guilty.  To  dis- 
pute and  disprove  the  alleged  guilt  of  those  accused,  we  have  the  evidence  of 
Greer,  Hutchins,  and  Henrie,  which  is  an  elaborate  plea  of  a felon,  “Not 
guilty.”  This  single  statement  is  the  substance  of  the  evidence  given  by  them. 
They  were  not  expected  to  confess  their  crime. 

To  prove  alibi  for  Henrie,  is  presented  an  array  of  testimony,  consisting  of 
two  affidavits  made  by  himself,  one  by  Lucy  Barlow,  and  one  by  John  F.  Cum- 
mings. Henrie  says  he  did  not  do  it,  nor  does  he  know  who  did;  that  he  has 
no  knowledge  upon  the  subject.  Cummings’  affidavit,  at  p.  448,  should  be 
read  and  preserved  as  a curiosity.  He  was  personally  acquainted  with  Hen- 
rie— had  been  for  a year  or  more;  saw  him  frequently  in  October  and  No- 
vember; met  him  on  the  evening  of  October  18th  at  the  Grand  Opera  House, 
in  Topeka;  engaged  him  to  report  speech  of  Hon.  David  Overmyer;  left  him 
taking  notes;  on  the  next  day  received  his  report  at  the  “Windsor.”  This 
affidavit  bears  date  June  25,  1889.  Who  is  John  F.  Cummings?  Where  did 
he  hail  from?  and  where  has  he  flown?  He  says  he  was  business  manager  of 
the  Daily  Sunflower . If  he  held  such  relations  to  the  Sunflower , it  was,  in  truth, 
ephemeral.  None  but  he  and  Henrie  knew  thereof,  and  he  faded  from  view, 
leaving  none  to  advise  us  of  his  whereabouts;  he  was  simply  a worthless  jour- 
neyman printer  — now  you  see  him  and  now  you  don’t.  He  is  like  the  wind 
“that  bloweth  where  it  listeth:  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not 
tell  from  whence  it  cometh  or  whither  it  goeth.”  So  is  John  F.  Cummings. 
His  affidavit,  upon  its  face,  shows  it  was  carefully  drawn,  with  a design  to  de- 
ceive, and  was  sworn  to  as  a personal  favor.  (See  Smith’s  evidence,  p.240.) 

On  August  14, 1889,  Henrie  took  Lucy  Barlow,  then  of  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  be- 
fore W.  H.  Young,  of  Kansas  City , Kas .,  where  she  made  the  affidavit  signed  by 
her  (shown  at  p.495).  Of  her  no  unkind  word  will  I say  — the  affidavit  speaks 
an  unmistakable  language.  Henrie  made  three  trips  for  it  before  he  procured 
it,  and  then  it  was  necessary  that  Henrie’s  wife  come  to  his  aid  in  securing  it. 
Mrs.  Barlow  had  known  Henrie  for  eight  years;  while  at  Topeka  she  lived  in 
the  same  house  with  him,  and  was  almost  daily  in  his  rooms.  She  must  have 
been  upon  good  terms  with  Mrs.  Henrie;  therefore,  when  the  wife  importuned 
her  on  behalf  of  the  husband,  it  is  not  strange  that  she  consented  to  make  an 
affidavit  prepared,  which  was  by  Henrie  explained  to  her  as  meaning  what 
she  supposed  the  facts  to  have  been.  An  inexperienced  woman  could  not  in- 
terpret and  construe  the  contents  thereof  so  as  to  determine  its  legal  import 
and  significance.  If  it  were  a plain,  simple  statement  of  the  truth,  why  any 
difficulty  in  obtaining  it?  and  why  should  the  maker  thereof  be  taken  from 
the  State  in  which  she  lived  for  the  purpose  of  verifying  it? 

In  July,  1889,  Humphrey  and  Greer,  with  the  approval  of  Hackney,  deter- 


172 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


mined  to  answer  the  charge  against  them,  and  to  publish  the  facts  pertaining 
to  the  Coffeyville  explosion,  Henrie  to  furnish  proof  thereof.  Possibly  the 
four  affidavits  mentioned  and  referred  to  disclose  such  facts,  and  advise  one 
who  is  responsible  for  that  explosion.  If  they  do,  he  who  gathers  such  in- 
formation therefrom  must  be  able  to  read  between  the  lines.  Does  anyone 
believe  that  Mr.  Henrie,  desiring  only  to  have  the  truth  known,  would  have 
depended  upon  Cummings  and  Mrs.  Barlow,  the  one  a tramp,  the  other  an 
itinerant  woman  of  Missouri,  to  establish  it,  when  by  going  into  the  office  of 
the  Governor  he  could,  by  the  statement  of  the  Governor’s  trusted  and  confi- 
dential clerk,  have  shown  conclusively,  that  as  to  him  the  charges  were  abso- 
lutely unfounded,  and  could  corroborate  that  clerk  by  two  employes  of  the 
Capital  office,  both  of  whom  were  then  in  Topeka  ? Is  it  probable,  is  it  reason- 
able, is  it  true,  that  Henrie,  knowing  he  could  then  command  McCray,  Capper, 
and  Scott,  and  prove  by  each  of  them  that  he  was , upon  October  18, 1888,  at 
the  middle  or  fore  part  of  that  day,  in  Topeka,  would  have  passed  them  by  and 
relied  upon  the  affidavits  of  Cummings  and  Mrs.  Barlow,  instead  of  making 
the  proof,  so  near  at  hand,  by  persons  permanently  located  ? Why  were  not 
McCray,  Capper  and  Scott  consulted  and  their  evidence  taken,  when  the 
charges  were  first  made,  and  what  they  knew  of  then  recent  transactions  .was 
fresh  in  their  recollection  ? But  one  reasonable  answer  can  be  given.  Those 
men  were  employes  of  the  Capital  office;  each,  to  some  extent,  but  in  different 
ways,  took  part  in  preparing  for  and  aiding  in  the  publication  of  the  expose 
in  their  paper  of  the  19th;  each  then  remembered  the  circumstances  attending 
it;  the  remembrance  of  Capper  and  Scott  would  not  then  enable  them  to  sub- 
serve Henrie’s  purpose;  they  had  no  inducement  to  stultify  themselves  by 
making  statements  by  them  known  to  be  false;  neither  had  his  attention  di- 
rected to  the  circumstances  attending  said  publication  until  after  this  investi- 
gation began,  which  was  more  than  two  years  after  the  time  of  the  explosion. 

Capper  and  Scott  were  engaged  about  their  ordinary  duties  — the  hum- 
drum of  every-day  toil.  There  is  no  reason  why  they  should  remember  what 
were  commonplace  and  apparently  unimportant  events  occurring  upon  the 
18th  day  of  October  more  distinctly  than  those  which  occured  upon  the  15th 
or  25th  of  the  same  month,  or  on  a given  day  of  any  other  month;  dates 
could  only  be  given  by  either  of  them  after  having  his  memory  refreshed  by 
papers  and  documents  presented  to  him,  or  the  date  desired  furnished  in  the 
question  propounded  to  him  by  counsel  for  defense,  and  frequently,  when 
necessary  to  more  particularly  fix  a date,  by  Senator  Kimball,  whose  tact, 
skill  and  ingenuity  are  proverbial.  Note  this  instance  of  the  Senator’s  effi- 
ciency. In  Scott’s  evidence  (p.  461),  the  Senator  asks: 

“Did  this  article  which  you  have  referred  to,  the  ‘plate  matter’  which  you 
found  upon  the  ‘turtle’  in  your  room,  appear  in  the  next  issue  of  your  paper 


WEBB'S  LETTER . 


173 


after  you  found  it  there?”  Scott  said,  “Yes,  sir.”  The  Senator  then  asked, 
“Was  that  how  you  know  it  was  on  the  18th  that  you  found  this  plate  matter 
there?”  Scott  answered  “That’s  the  way  I know;  yes,  sir.”  The  Senator 
then  said,  “And  it  was  published  on  the  next  day,  which  was  the  19th?” 
“Yes,  sir.”  Again:  ’‘“Was  it  in  reference  to  this  particular  matter  that  you 
went  to  Mr.  McCray?  ” “Yes,  sir.”  When  Mr.  Scott  had  stated  his  residence 
and  occupation,  he  was  asked  by  Mr.  Curtis,  “Do  you  know  C.  A.  Henrie?” 
He  answered  affirmatively.  Counsel  then  said,  “I  will  ask  you  to  look  at  the 
Topeka  Daily  Capital,  of  Friday  morning,  October  19,  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
freshing your  memory,  and  ask  you  to  state  if  you  met  Mr.  Henrie  upon  the 
day  before  the  publication  of  that  paper?”  Scott  replied,  “I  did,”  and  was 
then  asked  “Where?”  and  answered,  “In  the  editorial  rooms  of  the  Daily 
Capital .”  He  was  asked  to  tell  how  he  happened  to  meet  him  on  that  date. 
He  replied:  “ I came  to  the  office  about  12:30;  I found  the  plate  matter  for  this 
article  upon  the  ‘turtle’  in  my  room;  went  to  McCray  to  find  out  about  the 
matter;  what  it  was  for.  He  and  Mr.  Henrie  were  in  there,  and  had  the  proof 
of  the  article.” 

This  is  the  fullness  of  Scott’s  knowledge;  he  did  not  talk  with  Henrie;  saw 
no  more  of  him  that  day;  does  not  know  when  he  saw  him  last  before  or  next 
after  that  time.  Henrie  had  been  employed  in  the  Capital  office  some  time 
before  — Scott  thinks  two  weeks  or  a month  before;  could  not  tell  whether 
Henrie  worked  there  that  day,  or  when  he  did  work,  without  looking  at  the 
pay-roll;  that  would  have  spoken  the  truth  with  exactness.  It  was  in  Henrie’s 
power  to  produce  it,  for  the  purpose  of  proving  affirmatively,  a fact  (if  it  be 
one)  important  to  him.  Having  the  evidence  at  hand,  and  failing  to  furnish 
it,  the  legal  presumption  is,  that  it  would,  if  produced,  speak  against  the  one 
being  able  and  failing  to'  present  it.  Mr.  Scott  has,  no  doubt,  seen  Henrie  at 
the  Capital  office,  both  when  he  was  and  was  not  at  work  there.  How  he  can 
remember  that  he  was  there  at  a specified  time  of  a particular  day  when  he 
did  not  speak  to  or  with  him,  nor  hear  a word  said  by  or  to  him,  does  not 
know  when  he  came,  how  long  he  stayed,  or  at  what  time  he  departed,  whether 
he  had  seen  him  for  two  weeks  or  a month  before,  or  how  soon  after  he  was 
visible  to  the  employes  of  that  office,  is,  at  least,  remarkable.  He  does  not 
remember  any  better  than  did  the  Governor  in  his  conversation  with  Webb. 

When  we  reflect  the  article  was  prepared,  plate  was  on  hand,  and  forms 
were  being  made  up  on  October  17,  or  that  Bion  S.  Hutchins  wrote  Greer 
that  which  was  not  true,  we  may  reasonably  conclude  Mr.  Scott  to  be  mista- 
ken as  to  date  mentioned  by  him ; see  Hutchins’  letter  to  Greer,  at  p.  95. 
Mr.  Scott  was  mistaken  or  Hutchins  lied.  Which  is  the  more  probable  — the 
more  charitable?  Scott,  long  after  an  occurrence  in  which  he  had  no  direct 
interest,  speaks  concerning' it.  Hutchins  was  writing  of  a matter  in  which  he 
was  deeply  interested,  and  which  he  was  directing  at  the  time.  The  position, 
conduct  and  evidence  'of  McCray  must  not  be  forgotten  or  overlooked ; he 
was  assistant  editor  of  the  Capital , the  organ  of  the  party  in  the  State ; he 


174 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


expected  to  be  and  was  made  executive  clerk  — still  holds  that  position  ; that 
he  is  anxious  to  defend  his  chief,  promptly,  by  honest  means,  is  both  natural 
and  right ; to  consent  to  do  so  by  other  means,  upright  men  willtnot.  He 
was  present  at  the  conversation  between  the  ‘Governor,  Greer,  and  Hackney, 
on  J uly  4,  which  was  of  two  hours’  duration ; p.  456.  At  p.  458,  he  says  : “ Greer, 
in  that  interview,  was  desirous  to  include  in  the  publication  (the  answer  to 
the  whole  matter)  affidavits  from  the  parties  who  knew  that  Mr.  Henrie  was  in 
Topeka  October,  18, 1888.”  Henrie  did  not  ask  an  affidavit  from  him,  nor  did 
he  offer  to  make  one ; he  had  listened  to  the  arrangement  of  the  Governor, 
Greer  and  Hackney,  understood  their  purpose,  knew  what  Greer  wanted  to  in- 
clude in  his  publication,  knew  he  could  truthfully  make  one  desired  by  Greer, 
which,  with  those  who  would  believe  it,  would  vindicate  the  Governor  against 
what  he  considered  serious  charges.  Why  his  silence  and  inaction  in  that  be- 
half ? He  was  anxious  Henrie  should  provide  the  affidavits  required  of  him, 
called  upon  him  twice  concerning  them,  knew  of  the  delay  in  furnishing  them, 
and  all  this  time  was  pregnant  with  knowledge  of  the  one  fact,  proof  of  which 
would  have  at  once  quieted  all  misgivings  as  to  the  purity  of  the  Governor’s 
motives  and  purposes.  A faithful  subordinate  would  not  thus  have  neglected 
the  good  name  of  a high-minded  and  upright  superior.  McCray,  while  giv- 
ing evidence,  was,  seemingly,  insincere,  wanted  to  be  smart , sought  to  evade 
questions  and  avoid  answering  them,  by  his  action  saying  to  the  prosecution: 
I am  an  important  part  of  this  administration;  by  what  right  do  you  propose 
to  question  my  action  or  motives?  McCray  has  a distinct  remembrance  of 
the  events  of  October  18,  but  is  unable  to  state  what  occurred  upon  any  other 
day,  except  the  one  upon  which  Humphrey,  Greer,  Hackney  and  himself  had 
the  interview. 

During  the  progress  of  this  investigation  he  talked  with  Humphrey,  Hutch- 
ins, Henrie,  Greer,  and  Booth,  as  to  what  he  knew  and  would  swear;  he  does 
not  remember  that  he  talked  with  them  all , at  one  time,  but  does  remember 
talking  with  each  of  them.  He  must  have  needed  much  coaching  to  prepare 
him  for  an  acceptable  performance  of  a duty  assigned  him,  as  it  became  es- 
sential that  he  be  interviewed  and  instructed  by  different  individuals  from 
time  to  time.  He  says  he  was  talked  to;  that  they  were  all  talked  to.  By  all , 
he  undoubtedly  means  those  who  gave  evidence  concerning  Henrie’s  presence 
in  Topeka  October  18th,  namely,  McCray,  Capper,  and  Scott.  Capper’s  evi- 
dence, when  taken  as  a whole,  is  vague  and  uncertain.  Scott  relates  circum- 
stances which,  taken  in  connectton  with  other  evidence,  show  that  he  may 
have  been,  and  probably  was,  mistaken  as  to  the  day.  Of  McCray,  each  must 
judge  for  himself.  The  facts  that,  soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  Governor’s 
term  he  became  executive  clerk,  and  has  since  continuously  held  a position 
of  trust  and  confidence  toward  the  Governor;  that  it  was  his  duty  to  guard 


WEBB'S  LETTER. 


175 


and  defend  the  integrity  of  the  executive  when  wrongfully  assailed,  and 
thereby  help  to  uphold,  free  from  tarnish,  the  good  name  of  the  State;  that 
the  Governor  was  accused  of  complicity  in  the  Coffeyville  explosion,  and  with 
being  cognizant  that  Henrie,  pursuant  to  a common  understanding  of  the 
conspirators,  of  whom  the  Governor  was  one,  was  personally  at  Coffeyville 
on  October  18th,  for  the  purpose  of  having  the  explosive  shipped  to  Winfield; 
that  the  Governor  deemed  such  charge  serious ; that  he,  Greer  and  Hackney  had 
resolved  to  refute  it,  and  were  anxious  to  do  so  by  sworn  statements  of  persons 
who  knefa  Henrie  to  have  been  upon  that  day  in  Topeka,  and  therefore  could  not 
have  been  at  Coffeyville ; that  he  possessed  this  information,  essential  to  the  Gov- 
ernor and  those  accused  with  him;  that  he  did  not  furnish,  or  offer  to  fur- 
nish, his  affidavit  to  Greer  for  publication,  stating  his  knowledge  concerning 
Henrie;  that  he  was  not  requested  by  Henrie  to  make  a statement  that  he 
(Henrie)  was  in  Topeka  at  the  time  stated;  that  it  did  not  occur  to  this  zeal- 
ous, conscientious  and  faithful  executive  clerk  (and  political  prostitute)  that 
j was  due  his  benefactor,  as  an  act  of  duty  and  gratitude,  to  relate  the  sim- 
ple God’s  truth,  and  thereby  allay  the  anxiety  of  the  Governor  and  the  solici- 
tude of  his  friends,  are  irreconcilable  with  the  truthfulness  of  the  story  he 
now  relates. 

A fair  man,  a decent  man,  an  honest  man,  a truthful  and  conscientious 
man,  would  not  have  so  delayed,  but  would  have  promptly  stepped  forward, 
told  and  offered  to  verify  the  truth,  as  he  then  knew  it.  His  failure  in  that 
behalf  gives  the  lie  to  his  evidence  given  to  the  committee  and  is  “confirma- 
tion strong  as  Holy  Writ”  of  the  truth  of  the  affidavit  of  Edwin  French,  at 
p.  178,  who  is  the  father  of  Lucy  Barlow,  lived  with  her  in  October,  1888,  and 
relates  circumstances  which  would  attract  attention  and  stamp  themselves 
upon  the  memory.  He  knew  Henrie  was  away  from  home;  saw  him  with  his 
grip  when  he  returned;  told  him  “that  was  a nice  time  of  night  to  come  slip- 
ping home.”  Henrie  made  no  reply,  but  passed  on  upstairs  and  remained  at 
home  all  the  next  day.  When  the  Kansas  City  Times  charged  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  explosion  upon  Henrie,  French,  with  that  paper,  called  Henrie’s 
attention  to  the  charge.  During  the  second  day  after  his  return,  Henrie  sent 
a request  to  Mr.  French,  by  Mrs.  Barlow,  not  to  mention  his  being  at  home. 
Henrie  received  from  some  quarter  a suit  of  clothes,  and  in  speaking  of  them 
to  Mr.  French  said:  “I  am  not  satisfied  with  a suit  of  clothes;  I will  have  the 
position  promised  me  in  the  Labor  Bureau,  or  I will  raise  hell.”  This  affi- 
davit is  natural;  it  is  reasonable  in  its  recitals,  has  upon  its  face  the  impress 
of  truth,  is  consistent  with  established  facts  of  the  case,  is  in  harmony  with 
the  evidence  of  Mr.  Upham,  Mr.  Waldrop,  and  Hutchins’  letter  to  Greer,  is  in 
full  keeping  with  the  infamous  purpose  of  the  plotters  and  the  confirmed 
-villainy  of  Henrie,  but  it  does  not  accord  with  the  sworn  statements  of 


176 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


McCray.  I do  not  say  evidence,  for  the  reason  that  evidence  is  that  which 
makes  clear  the  truth  of  the  matter  in  dispute;  it  persuades  the  mind  and 
convinces  the  judgment;  while  McCray’s  statements,  sworn  or  unsworn,  ef- 
fect no  such  results.  His  manner  while  telling  his  story,  his  evasive  and 
equivocal  replies,  his  manifest  unwillingness  to  tell  the  truth,  his  persistent 
effort  to  suggest  matters  not  inquired  after,  his  confessed  gross  neglect  of 
duty,  his  failing  to  furnish  proof  of  important  matters  which  he  now  pre- 
tends to  have  fully  known,  present  him  in  the  light  of  a pompous,  egotistic, 
arrogant,  self-sufficient,  ungrateful,  hypocritical  and  colossal  liar.  Such,  in 
my  judgment,  is  his  real  character.  His  pretended  knowledge  of  Henrie 
upon  October  18th  is  an  afterthought. 

When  the  affidavits  of  Henrie,  Cummings  and  Barlow  were  criticised  and 
analyzed,  they  proved  so  diaphanous  and  gauzy  that  they  needed  support  and 
corroboration.  Being  unable  to  find  it  elsewhere,  this  ever-vigilant  executive 
clerk  proclaims  his  willingness,  in  the  then  emergency,  to  rescue  and  save 
those  who  were  imperiled,  and,  after  having  been  talked  to  and  groomed  for 
the  occasion,  comes  forward  and  endeavors,  as  best  he  can,  to  save  the  sinking 
ship,  and,  in  his  way,  tells  a story  barren  of  truth,  false  upon  its  face,  and  not 
believed  by  one  who  heard  it.  Another  thing  to  be  noticed  will  be  found  at 
page  96.  On  October  25,  1888,  Hutchins  wrote  Greer:  “I  return  the  original 
of  the  Vidette  expose  to  you,  so  that  you  may  convince  the  skeptical  in  your 
county,  and  publish  to  the  world  that  you  have  found  another,  and  can  dis- 
play absolute  proof  to  the  doubting  ones.  It  would  be  well,  after  election,  to 

send  it  to  the  State  Historical  Society,  perhaps.  Give  them  the  d 1 and 

pray  that  the  skunk  that  sent  the  bomb  may  be  caught.”  In  this  letter 
Hutchins  advises  Greer  to  misrepresent  and  falsify  the  truth,  and  declares 
that  he  sends  a document  to  enable  him  to  impose  upon  the  credulity  of  the 
public;  he  then  suggests  the  propriety  of  storing,  among  the  archives  of  the 
State,  for  future  observance,  the  tangible  proof  of  his  perfidy  and  of  their 
hypocrisy. 

The  hallowed  feature  of  this  epistle  from  Bion  to  Edward  is,  the  manifesta- 
tion on  the  part  of  Hutchins  of  resignation  to  and  faith  in  Providence,  when 
he  admonishes  his  brother  Greer  to  give  their  opponents  the  devil,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  invoke  the  aid  of  Heaven;  thus,' give  them  hell,  and  pray.  This 
letter  speaks  the  language  and  breathes  the  odor  of  insincerity,  hypocrisy, 
falsehood,  treachery,  and  blasphemy;  it  conclusively  proves  its  writer  capable 
of  engaging  in  any  undertaking  to  accomplish  which  such  traits  of  character 
need  to  be  exercised.  Mrs.  Lease,  intuitively,  or  otherwise,  must  have  had  a 
just  appreciation  of  Bion  S.  Hutchins’s  religious  make-up,  when,  in  speaking 
of  him  and  his  conduct,  she  said  she  had  not  applied  to  the  man,  or  his  de- 
portment, the  property  or  qualification  “moral.”  It  is,  I suppose,  a blessing 


WEBB'S  LETTER. 


177 


that  we  do  not  “see  ourselves  as  others  see  us.”  From  the  evidence  herein 
recited  and  referred  to,  one  must  be  persuaded  that  political  methods  in  Kan- 
sas have  not  been  characterized  by  open,  frank  and  candid  intercourse  with 
the  masses,  upon  the  part  of  those  who  inaugurate,  manage  and  direct  the 
means  employed  to  secure  triumphs  for  the  grand  old  party;  nor  are  bold, 
brave  men  selected,  universally,  for  positions  of  honor  and  responsibility. 
Those  of  us  who  believe  our  Government  was  established  for,  and,  when  right- 
fully administered,  will  defend  and  protect  the  whole  people;  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  each  generation  to  transmit  it  to  its  successor,  changed  and  modified 
only  as  is  required  to  adapt  it  to  their  needs  and  conditions;  that  the  con- 
stantly-increasing intelligence  of  the  people,  in  the  light  of  the  recorded  ex- 
perience of  former  generations  will  enable,  and  should  prompt,  each  to  so 
reform  and  modify  it,  that  it  may  hand  it  over  in  a condition  better  than  that 
in  which  it  received  it.  Governments  do  not,  in  their  organic  laws,  provide 
for  their  destruction  or  overthrow ; each  anticipates  and  contemplates  its 
perpetuation,  and  does  provide  for  such  changes  as  future  necessities  shall 
require,  to  the  end  that  it  may  the  better  assist  and  protect  its  citizens  ; hence, 
each  generation  is  obligated  to  its  successors  for  all  time,  and  can  only  dis- 
charge that  obligation  by  pursuing  the  right  as  God  enables  it  to  behold  and 
understand  it.  The  outspoken  sentiment  of  intelligent  masses  everywhere  is 
condemnatory  of  a resort  to  cunning  devices,  deeds  of  daring  and  the  use  of 
dangerous  instrumentalities  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  civil  affairs  in 
which  they  are  interested.  Such  practices  by  those  seeking  positions,  and 
helping  to  confer  the  same,  destroys  confidence  and  respect,  generates  dis- 
trust and  want  of  respect  for  those  who  sit  in  high  places.  The  conduct  and 
associations  of  a candidate  for  Governor  should  be  such  that  there  will  be  no 
base  upon  which  to  rest  a charge  of  complicity  and  participancy  on  his  part 
in  disreputable  and  unsavory  practices,  and  above  all , the  actions  of  the  Gov- 
ernor should  not  be  such  as  to  confirm  the  truth  of  charges  implicating  him, 
concerning  which,  before  his  election,  some  doubt  may  have  existed. 

For  twenty  years  I have  known  Lyman  U.  Humphrey;  he  is  not  a bad  man 
or  citizen;  as  such  he  would  not  engage  in  disreputable  or  criminal  practices. 
He  is  both  ambitious  and  weak;  his  native  timidity  would  cause  him  to  yield 
readily  to  others  in  sympathy  with  him;  his  non-combative  make-up  would 
incline  him  to  silence  when  his  friends  and  supporters  were  prosecuting  plans 
which,  at  heart,  he  did  not  approve;  and  when  after  such  means  were  used  in 
his  behalf  he  found  himself,  because  thereof,  installed  in  office  and  clothed 
with  power,  his  moral  cowardice  would  induce  him  to  do  things  which  he 
hoped  would  withhold  from  the  public  a knowledge  of  the  means  by  which  he 
was  elevated.  It  was  these  influences  which  operated  upon  and  led  him  to  be- 
lieve llwe  had  to  do  it .”  Ed.  Greer,  reckless,  indiscreet,  and  insane  partisan, 


178 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Henry  Booth,  a large-brained,  subtle,  deep-minded  man,  Bion  S.  Hutchins, 
with  no  conscience,  but  a cheek  of  rat-trap  steel,  were  a combination  which 
the  Governor  could  not  resist.  The  first  suggesting  an  end  desired,  tfie  sec- 
ond, means  for  its  accomplishment,  the  third,  undertaking  to  provide  and 
furnish  the  agents  to  apply  them.  Greer  says,  We  must  get  rid  of  the  Vin- 
cents and  their  paper.  Booth  replies,  You  have  been  denouncing. them  as 
anarchists;  just  get  some  desperate  character  to  send  to  one  of  them  a hellish 
machine  in  the  nature  of  a dynamite  bomb.  You  will  be  able  to  know  when 
it  will  reach  its  destination,  and  can  intercept  it  at  the  opportnne  moment; 
do  this,  and  an  exasperated  and  infuriated  populace  will  do  the  rest.  Hutchins 
says,  I know  the  man;  Henrie  will  rejoice  at  the  opportunity.  I will  stand 
sponsor  for  him. 

It  is  not  strange  that  charges  imputing  criminal  misconduct  to  men  of 
that  character  shall  awaken  doubts;  that  if  for  a long  time  they  remain  un- 
answered they  are  believed.  We  are  judged  by  the  known  character  of 
our  associates;  by  our  fruits  we  are  known.  One  of  true  moral  courage,  in- 
stead of  securing  position  to  Henrie,  would  have  said:  “Mr.  Hutchins,  you 
need  not  hope  or  importune  me  to  betray  an  honest  people,  or  violate  sacred 
trusts  with  which  I am  charged.  I cannot  ignore  the  wishes  and  interests  of 
those  who  have  made  me  what  I am,  and  placed  me  in  position  where,  by 
proper  conduct,  I can  make  of  myself  what  in  right  I should  be.  If  you  were 
so  unwise  or  base  as  to  employ  criminal  means,  hoping  thereby  to  advance 
my  political  interests,  I do  not  approve  thereof,  and  I will  not  reward  those 
aiding  you  therein.  It  is  better,  infinitely  better,  that  I retire  from  office  at 
the  close  of  one  term,  and  carry  with  me  in  retirement  a good  opinion  of  my- 
self, upheld  and  sustained  by  a consciousness  of  having  preserved  my  integ- 
rity, than  that  I shall  sanction  crime,  reward  infamy,  and  by  repetition  of 
similar  practices,  be  continued  in  power.  It  was  the  farmer  Ashland  who 
said,  “It  is  better  to  be  right  than  to  be  President.”  God  designed  this  glori- 
ous commonwealth,  this  vast  empire,  the  State  of  our  adoption,  with  its  fer- 
tile soil  and  salubrious  climate,  to  be  converted  into  happy  homes  for  millions 
of  prosperous,  contented  American  citizens,  from  whose  homely  huts  and 
palatial  structures  curling  smokes  should  arise  like  incense  in  the  morning; 
where,  in  the  years  to  come,  voices  of  happy  children  will  resound  along  ten 
thousand  valleys  at  the  summer  day’s  decline;  where  order,  peace  and  quiet 
shall  prevail  — religious  liberty  be  exercised  without  restraint;  where  each  will 
be  permitted  to  worship  our  common  Father  in  harmony  with  his  concep- 
tions of  duty  and  of  right.  Let  us  hope  the  present  order  may  soon  subside, 
and  in  its  stead  sober  judgment,  dictated  by  pure  motives,  guided  by  an  en- 
larged sense  of  duty,  will  advise  and  direct  the  affairs  of  state;  that  the  public 
welfare  and  its  promotion  will  be  universally  regarded  as  the  great  disidera- 


SOME  INSIDE  HISTORY. 


179 


turn;  that  by  united  effort  and  common  consent  individual  interest  will  be  de- 
clared inferior,  and  made  to  give  place  to  the  public  good.  When  this  rule 
shall  be  adopted  and  followed,  fraud,  deceit,  hypocrisy  and  treachery  will  be 
unknown  in  high  places,  for  honesty,  candor,  sincerity  and  fidelity  will  have 
resumed  their  positions.  Then  will  the  people  rejoice,  and  the  nation  be  ex- 
alted; then  will  the  favor  and  peace  of  God  rest  upon  and  overspread  all.  To 
secure  this  end,  an  earnest,  united  effort  will  be  required;  its  accomplishment, 
so  much  to  fie  desired,  can  only  thus  be  attained.  Let  us  hope  for  its  consum- 
mation. 

, “Hope  whispers  rest  to  weary  men, 

Who  long  for  joy  and  peace; 

It  mentions,  softly,  betfer  times, 

When  hellish  methods  cease.” 


H.  G.  Webb. 


APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  II. 

Since  the  above  was  written  and  most  of  it  in  type,  something  further  has 
come  to  our  knowledge,  and  we  avail  ourselves  of  the  privilege  an  appendix 
affords.  On  pages  622,  623,  of  the  record,  Senator  Kimball  lays  great  stress 
upon  the  peculiar  fitness  of  Henrie  for  the  office  of  clerk  in  the  Labor  Bureau, 
alleging  that  he  was  a member  of  the  K.  of  L.,  the  Typographical  Union,  and 
American  Federation  of  Labor.  There  is  nothing  in  the  evidence  to  warrant 
the  assertion  that  he  belonged  to  the  latter  organization  at  all,  he  was  ex- 
pelled from  the  K.  of  L.,  and  we  now  subjoin  some  information  to  show  how 
he  was  regarded  in  the  Typographical  Union. 

About  the  “honorary”  certificate  of  membership  in  the  Typographical 
Union: 

The  membership  of  a trade-union  is  composed  of  men  (and  sometimes 
women)  actually  engaged  in  some  one  trade  as  employes,  working  for  daily, 
weekly,  or  monthly  wages,  under  the  direction  of  an  employer  or  proprietor. 
The  prime  object  of  a trade-union  is  to  maintain  as  high  a rate  of  wages  and 
as  high  a standard  of  general  conditions  of  employment  for  its  members  as  is 
possible.  Therefore,  employers,  proprietors,  and  non-wage-earners  in  that 
particular  trade,  are  universally  denied  “active”  membership,  because  their 
interests  in  that  direction  are  not  considered  parallel  with  those  of  the  wage- 
earner. 

In  the  Typographical  Union  “honorary”  membership  is  regulated  entirely 
by  local  laws,  some  unions  conferring  the  title  upon  philanthropic  persons 
outside  the  trade  as  well  as  upon  ex- “active”  members,  while  other  unions 
refuse  to  confer  the  title  at  all  except  to  persons  who  have  at  some  previous 
time  taken  the  usual  obligation  as  “active”  members,  and  are  about  to 


180 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


withdraw  from  active  service  in  the  printing  trade  as  journeyman  workmen. 
The  latter  is  the  rule  in  the  Topeka  Typographical  Union.  Their  “honor- 
ary” certificate  indicates  that  the  holder  was,  at  some  previous  time,  an  “ac- 
tive” member  of  the  union,  i.  e.,  a journeyman  printer,  working  at  the  trade 
in  Topeka,  and  a member  of  the  Topeka  Typographical  Union;  that  he  had 
quit  the  printing  trade  and  engaged  in  some  other  vocation;  and  that  at  the 
time  of  quitting  the  printing  trade  and  engaging  in  some  other  vocation  he 
was  “square”  with  the  union  in  a financial  way  — did  not  owe  any  back  dues, 
fines,  or  assessments.  The  “honorary”  certificates  issued  by  a local  typo- 
graphical union  are  of  no  force  or  effect  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the  local 
unions  issuing  them,  and  they  may  be  revoked  at  any  time  the  local  union 
sees  fit  to  do  so. 

There  is  also  an  “International  Traveling  Card”  issued  to  members  of  the 
craft  when  passing  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  one  union  into  that  of  another, 
or  when  quitting  the  trade  to  engage  in  some  other  vocation.  The  “Interna- 
tional Card”  is  good  anywhere  in  the  United  States  or  Canada,  and  secures 
to  the  holder  admission  to  union  meetings,  general  recognition  among  union 
men,  and  employment. 

Upon  quitting  the  printing  trade  to  accept  a position  in  the  Labor  Bureau, 
Henrie,  having  paid  all  dues,  fines  and  assessments  to  date,  was  entitled  to 
either  an  “International  Traveling  Card”  or  an  “Honorary  Certificate  of 
Membership,”  whichever  he  desired,  provided  the  union  had  no  objection  to 
issuing  one  or  the  other. 

The  facts  are,  Henrie  desired  to  carry  a “Working  Card,”  and  thus  retain  his 
“active”  membership  in  the  union,  even  after  quitting  the  trade,  because  that 
would  give  him  opportunities  to  take  part  in  the  meetings  and  vote.  This 
the  union  objected  to.  The  next  most  desirable  thing  for  him  was  an  “Inter- 
national Traveling  Card,”  because  that  would  give  him  entree  to  Typographical 
Unions  anywhere  in  Kansas,  or  in  the  United  States,  and  such  a card  might  be 
deposited  at  any  time  and  secure  to  the  bearer  the  right  to  participate  in  im- 
portant meetings,  and  vote  at  important  elections.  This  the  union  also 
objected  to,  on  the  grounds  — as  expressed  by  numerous  members  — that 
Henrie’s  general  reputation  for  unscrupulousness,  and  his  ever  readiness  to 
lend  himself  to  low-down  political  jobbers,  would  undoubtedly  prompt  him 
to  prostitute  his  card  and  its  privileges,  if  necessary  to  gain  his  own  diabol- 
ical ends. 

Having  paid  up  all  dues  to  date,  the  union  could  not  refuse  to  give  him  a 
receipted  bill,  and  the  only  thing  left  was  to  issue  to  him  an  “Honorary  Cer- 
tificate,” because  that  was  a form  of  certificate  wholly  under  the  control  of  the 
local  union,  not  good  outside  its  jurisdiction,  and  no  other  card  or  certificate 
could  ever  be  secured  by  Henrie,  except  upon  surrender  of  the  “Honorary 


SOME  INSIDE  HISTORY. 


181 


Certificate”  and  permission  of  the  Topeka  Typographical  Union.  Therefore, 
at  a regular  meeting  of  the  Topeka  Typographical  Union,  by  a unanimous 
vote,  and  that  over  Henrie’s  protest,  an  “ Honorary  Certificate  of  Member- 
ship” was  issued  to  him,  that  being  deemed  the  safest  form  to  confer  upon 
people  of  his  character. 

This,  it  will  be  seen,  was  the  simplest  way  to  get  rid  both  of  his  presence 
and  his  influence  in  any  similar  union  — a practical  “kick  out  of  the  union” 
by  polite  methods  instead  of  with  a fight. 

They  “Had  to”  Take  Him  and  They  “Have  to”  Keep  Him. — In  Octo- 
ber or  November,  1889,  the  Labor  Commissioner  made  complaint  to  several 
trade-unionists  in  Topeka  that  the 
officers  and  members  of  various 
trade-unions  in  and  around  the 
city  were  very  reticent  about  giv- 
ing the  bureau  information  regard- 
ing wages,  conditions  of  labor,  or 
statistics.  The  matter  was  brought 
up  in  a subsequent  meeting  of  the 
Trades  Assembly  and  a special 
committe  of  five,  each  member 
representing  a different  trade,  was 
appointed  to  call  on  Commissioner 
Betton,  explain  to  him  why  the 
trade-unions  were  out  of  sympa- 
thy with  the  bureau,  and  also  offer 
some  suggestions  as  to  how  the 
lack  of  sympathy  might  be  reme- 
died. That  committee  had  a con- 
ference with  the  commissioner  and 
told  him  the  trade-unions  were  in- 
different about  giving  information 
to  the  bureau  because  its  agents, 
sent  out  to  collect  information 
and  data  (Cougher  and  Henrie),  were  in  such  disrepute  among  honest 
workingmen  that  the  latter  did  not  care  to  associate  with  them,  even  to 
the  extent  of  furnishing  statistics  for  the  bureau.  This  committee  then 
suggested  some  changes  in  blank  forms  used  by  the  bureau,  and  promised 
the  commissioner  that  if  future  investigations  would  be  made  along  certain 
lines,  the  trade-unionists  would  in  all  probability  render  him  more  assistance. 
No  change,  however,  was  made  in  the  personnel  of  the  bureau,  but  the  com- 


182 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


missioner  did  endeavor  to  so  detail  Cougher  and  Henrie  that  their  work  might 
be  among  such  people  as  knew  the  least  about  them. 

July  3,  1890,  a convention  of  trade-unionists,  49  in  number,  and  represent- 
ing 15  distinct  trades,  convened  in  Topeka  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  a 
State  Federation  of  Labor,  and  accomplished  their  object.  Henrie  was  pres- 
ent at  the  opening  of  that  convention,  and  made  himself  conspicuous  in 
endeavors  to  so  shape  the  course  of  the  convention  in  its  attitude  towards 
the  Labor  Bureau,  that  an  indorsement  of  it  might  be  made  use  of  by  the 
“State-House  gang”  as  an  indirect  indorsement  of  the  State  administration 
by  organized  labor.  Henrie  prepared  a resolution,  very  profuse  in  compli- 
ments to  the  bureau  and  its  commissioner,  and  got  it  before  the  committee 
on  resolutions,  hoping  to  secure  favorable  action  on  it,  thus  giving  him  a 
chance  to  go  back  to  his  chief  and  say:  “See  how  solid  I am  with  the  hoys  — 
I got  this  through  for  you.” 

At  the  afternoon  session  the  convention  decided  to  exclude  all  persons  from 
the  hall  except  duly-accredited  delegates,  and  thus  Henrie  was  shut  out.  His 
resolution  was  not  reported  at  all  by  the  committee,  but  in  its  stead  there  was 
presented  one  denouncing  the  bureau,  its  chief,  and  especially  its  two  subor- 
dinates, Cougher  and  Henrie.  This  resolution  provoked  some  discussion, 
and,  upon  the  counsel  of  some  of  the  more  conservative  delegates,  it  was  so 
amended  as  to  “request”  the  Governor  to  give  the  Federation  an  audience 
when  the  time  came  to  make  new  appointments  in  the  Labor  Bureau,  thus 
signifying  their  dissatisfaction  with  the  bureau  as  it  was  then  constituted 
and  conducted;  and  so  the  resolution  passed.  (See  p.  10,  printed  proceedings 
of  the  convention.)  At  the  evening  session  of  the  convention  Henrie  applied 
for  admission  on  the  ground  that  he  was  a trade-unionist,  but  was  informed 
by  the  doorkeeper  (or  sergeant-at-arms)  that  the  resolution  excluding  all  but 
delegates  was  still  in  force,  and  he  could  not  get  in.  About  half  an  hour  later 
the  doorkeeper  reported  to  the  presiding  officer  that  “that  man  Henrie  was 
listening  on  the  outside  of  the  door,”  whereupon  the  doorkeeper  was  directed 
to  remove  Mr.  Henrie  entirely  from  the  approaches  to  the  hall.  The  door- 
keeper did  as  directed,  but  not  without  some  peremptory  orders  and  harsh 
words,  (pretty  strong  evidence  that  he  was  not  popular  with  the  “boys.”) 

Immediately  following  this  convention,  Betton,  recognizing  that  something 
must  be  done,  concluded  to  remove  Cougher,  and  sometime  between  the  1st 
and  15th  of  July  promised  a printer  by  the  name  of  White  a position  in  the 
Bureau.  The  appointment  of  White,  or  the  promise  to  appoint  him,  was 
made  entirely  through  political  influence  and  without  the  knowledge  of  any 
person  connected  with  the  State  Federation.  The  indorsement  of  trade-union- 
ists was  not  asked  for,  though  Betton  afterwards  said  he  supposed  White’s 


SOME  INSIDE  HISTORY . 


183 


appointment  would  be  satisfactory  to  trade-union  people  because  he  was  a 
member  of  Topeka  Typographical  Union  at  the  time  of  his  appointment. 
There  is  no  force,  however,  in  such  a statement,  because  Henrie  was  a mem- 
ber of  the  printer’s  union,  and  the  Knights  of  Labor,  too,  when  appointed, 
and  Cougher  was  also  a member  of  the  plasterers’  union  and  Knights  of  Labor 
when  appointed,  but  their  appointments  were  not  made  on  the  recommenda- 
tion of  those  societies. 

Betton’s  action  in  removing  Cougher,  however,  was  vetoed,  until  after  elec - 
tion , and  the  promise  to  White  was  kept  a secret  until  about  the  latter  part  of 
September  or  first  of  October.  When  the  promise  to  appoint  White  reached 
the  ears  of  some  of  the  trade-union  people  and  the  officers  of  the  State  Fed- 
eration, Betton  was  informed  that  if  Henrie  was  going  to  be  promoted  from 
the  $800  position  to  the  $1,000  one,  there  would  be  a “kick”  made,  not  be- 
cause the  trade-unionists  loved  White  more,  or  wanted  him  to  have  the  job, 
but  because  they  despised  Henrie,  and  felt  that  his  promotion,  in  the  face  of 
previous  protests,  would  be  an  insult. 

Just  after  election  Cougher  was  dismissed,  Henrie  promoted,  and  White 
appointed  to  the  vacancy.  It  soon  became  evident  to  the  officers  of  the 
Federation  and  other  trade-unionists  that  some  new  plan  must  be  devised 
to  rid  the  Labor  Bureau  of  its  disreputable  attaches.  The  second  convention 
of  the  Federation  was  called  for  February  16th,  (about  the  middle  of  the  leg- 
islative session,)  and  just  prior  to  the  time  when  the  Governor  would  make  a 
new  appointment  to  the  office  of  Labor  Commissioner.  Betton  was  desirous 
of  reappointment,  and  having  seen  a display  of  the  temper  of  the  trade- 
unionists  in  Henrie’s  case,  was  equally  desirous  to  get  solid  with  the  boys. 

It  seemed  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  “boys ’’—expressed  among  themselves 
— that  Betton  would  have  dropped  Henrie  if  he  could . The  fact  is,  he  (Bet- 
ton) told  an  old  resident  of  the  city  (who  is  now  in  business  in  Topeka)  and 
several  others  that  he  had  to  take  Henrie  into  the  bureau , and  it  is  presumed 
that  the  same  power  that  put  Henrie  into  the  bureau  also  promoted  him  to 
Cougher’s  place. 

When  Humphrey  was  inaugurated  it  was  arranged  between  Booth,  Hutch- 
ins, Cougher,  Henrie,  and  the  Governor,  that  Cougher  was  to  be  appointed 
Labor  Commissioner  in  Betton’s  stead,  and  Henrie  was  to  get  the  $1,000  clerk- 
ship under  Cougher.  When  that  scheme  got  out,  Buchan  jumped  to  the  res- 
cue of  his  henchman  (Betton),  denounced  Cougher  very  bitterly,  and  served 
notice  on  Humphrey  that  if  Betton  was  not  given  the  place  again  there  would 
be  war  between  him  and  Humphrey.  A compromise  was  then  fixed  up,  to  the 
end  that  Betton  was  to  be  reappointed,  Cougher  was  to  retain  the  $1,000 
clerkship,  and  an  $800  job  was  to  be  “worked”  for  Henrie.  Betton  here  dis- 
played his  subserviency  by  taking  in  the  two  fellows  who  had  been  trying  to 


184 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


“do”  him.  Now  the  matters  jnst  stated,  together  with  a good  deal  more,  came 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  Federation  officers  and  a few  other  trade-unionists  be- 
tween the  1st  of  July,  1890,  and  the  1st  of  February,  1891,  and  Betton  was  ap- 
proached with  the  proposition  that  the  unions  would  help  him  unload  Henrie 
if  he  would  let  the  Federation  select  a man  for  the  place.  This  he  agreed  to, 
provided , it  was  satisfactory  to  the  Governor!  It  was  suggested  that  the 
right  to  select  his  clerks  did  not  belong  to  the  Governor;  that  if  they  were  hon- 
orable citizens  and  competent  clerks,  the  Governor  could  not  properly  object. 
Betton  agreed  with  the  suggestion,  but  said  he  would  have  to  see  the  Governor 
first. 

Shortly  after  this  Betton  was  seen  again,  and  this  proposition  was  made  to 
him:  “Will  you  agree  to  appoint,  in  Henrie’s  stead,  one  of  three  persons  to  be 
named  by  the  State  Federation  at  its  forthcoming  convention,  if  the  Federa- 
tion will  indorse  you  to  the  Governor  for  reappointment?”  He  said  he  would 
have  to  first  confer  with  the  Governor , and  thereupon  invited  the  president  of 
the  Federation  to  accompany  him  to  the  Governor’s  office.  At  the  conference 
with  the  Governor  the  above  proposition  was  repeated,  and  the  Governor,  in- 
timating that  he  was  desirous  of  being  on  friendly  terms  with  the  trade-union 
people,  agreed  to  protect  Betton  in  his  appointment,  if  one  of  the  three  men 
were  appointed.  Having  secured  this  promise  from  the  Governor,  in  the 
presence  of  the  president  of  the  Federation,  Betton  thereupon  agreed  to  re- 
lieve Henrie  at  the  expiration  of  his  (Betton’s)  term  and  appoint  one  of  three 
persons  to  be  selected  by  the  Federation,  provided  the  Federation  would  in- 
dorse him  for  reappointment.  A conference  was  also  held  with  Buchan,  and 
he,  too,  pledged  his  protection  to  Betton’s  appointments,  as  the  Governor  had 
done. 

Now,  let  us  go  back  a little  ways.  During  the  latter  months  of  1890,  the 
clerks  and  salesmen  of  Topeka  organized  a union,  and  by  some  hook  or  crook 
Henrie  obtained  membership  therein.  It  was  necesssary,  in  his  business,  to 
belong  to  something,  and  since  he  had  been  expelled  by  the  Knights  of  La- 
bor, retired  by  the  printers’  union,  (and  perhaps  refused  admission  by  others,) 
he  of  course  sought  membership  in  the  newest  thing  that  came  along.  As 
soon  as  the  clerks  were  properly  organized,  they  were  solicited  to  send  dele- 
gates to  the  Trades  Assembly  — a sort  of  central  union  or  council,  represent- 
ing the  various  unions  in  Topeka.  This  was  an  important  matter  for  a new 
union,  and  with  his  usual  sleekness  Henrie  got  himself  elected  as  one  of  the 
delegates.  At  the  next  meeting  of  the  Trades  Assembly,  when  the  clerks’  dele- 
gates’ credentials  were  presented,  Henrie’s  certificate  was  absolutely  rejected, 
and  to  get  three  delegates  in  the  assembly,  the  clerks  had  to  elect  an- 
other in  Henrie’s  stead  — one  not  so  obnoxious  to  honest  workingmen.  Dur- 
ing the  mouth  of  January  the  various  unions  elected  delegates  to  the  February 


SOME  INSIDE  HISTORY. 


185 


convention  of  the  Federation,  among  others  the  Clerks’  and  Salesmen’s  Union. 
By  a little  wire-pulling  Henrie  succeded  in  getting  elected  as  a delegate  from 
the  Clerks’  Union  to  the  Federation  convention.  When  this  fact  became  known 
among  the  other  trade  unions  a general  “kick”  was  made  and  the  clerks  were 
notified  (not  officially,  but  by  numerous  individuals)  that  Henrie’s  credentials 
would  not  be  honored , and  possibly  the  Clerks’  Union  might  be  barred  out  of 
the  convention  entirely.  It  was  suggested  to  them  that  they  revoke  Henrie’s 
credentials  and  elect  some  other  in  his  stead.  They  concluded  to  do  so,  but 
Henrie  protested,  declaring  that  he  would  “fight  it  through.”  Immediately 
following  this  came  the  announcement  that  the  Legislature  proposed  to  inves- 
tigate the  Coffeyville  dynamite  matter,  and  Henrie  concluded  he  had  better 
not  have  two  fights  on  hand  at  once,  so  “resigned”  (by  request)  as  a delegate 
from  the  Clerks’  Union  to  the  Federation. 

The  Federation  finally  convened  on  February  16th.  On  the  afternoon  of 
the  17th  the  president  stated  to  the  convention  that  important  business  was 
yet  to  come  before  them,  and  suggested  an  executive  session.  ( See  page  12, 
printed  proceedings.)  The  proposition  made  to  Betton  (previously  referred 
to),  and  his  agreement  thereto,  had  been  made  known  during  the  day  to  per- 
haps seven  or  eight  delegates,  and  it  had  been  agreed  to  that  the  matter  ought 
to  be  kept  as  quiet  as  possible.  The  convention  agreed,  without  a dissenting 
voice,  to  the  proposition  to  indorse  Betton,  provided  he  would  pledge  himself 
to  appoint  one  of  three  men  (to  be  named)  to  Henrie’s  place.  sThree  per- 
sons, Messrs.  Brown  and  Trump,  of  Topeka,  and  Mr.  McElroy,  of  Hutchinson, 
were  then  selected  by  written  ballot , and  a resolution  passed  requesting  Betton 
to  appoint  one  of  the  three.  A resolution  was  then  passed  requesting  the 
Governor  to  reappoint  Betton  Labor  Commissioner.  A special  committee  of 
three  was  then  selected  by  written  ballot  to  take  charge  of  the  matter  for  the 
Federation  after  the  convention  adjourned,  and  to  them  were  referred  both 
resolutions,  with  instructions  to  call  on  Betton  and  get  him  to  reaffirm  his 
promise , and  if  he  did  so,  then  to  deliver  to  the  Governor  the  resolution  in- 
dorsing him  ( Betton)  for  reappointment.  The  committee  called  on  Betton, 
and  he  not  only  reiterated  his  promise  previously  made,  but  went  to  the  Gov- 
ernor with  the  committee,  and  both  again  pledged  their  word  to  carry  out  the 
former  agreement.  Thereupon  the  resolution  indorsing  Betton  for  reap- 
pointment was  sent  to  the  Governor,  and  the  resolution  requesting  the  ap- 
pointment of  one  of  the  three  named  was  sent  to  Betton. 

Not  long  after  this,  and  just  at  the  closing  hours  of  the  Legislature,  the 
Governor  sent  Betton’s  name  to  tt\e  Senate  for  confirmation  as  Labor  Com- 
missioner for  two  more  years,  and  the  Senate  confirmed  the  appointment. 
In  the  meantime,  the  Coffeyville  investigation  had  been  in  progress,  and  the 
evidence  taken  therein  had  so  thoroughly  convicted  Henrie  of  all  he  had  been 


186 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


charged  with,  that  Betton  actually  came  to  the  conclusion  Henrie  would  have 
to  be  discharged  anyhow,  but,  to  “let  the  crowd  down  easy,”  he  proposed  to 
the  Federation  committee  that  the  appointment  of  a person  in  his  stead  be 
deferred  a little  while.  Trusting  in  Betton’s  honor,  the  committee  acquiesced. 
A couple  of  months  passed  by,  and  Betton  notified  Henrie  he  must  look  for 
another  job.  Henrie  objected  to  this,  and  set  to  work  “pulling  the  strings” 
to  retain  his  place.  The  Federation  committee  became  impatient,  and  de- 
manded the  fulfillment  of  the  promise.  Betton  then  proposed  that  the  change 
be  deferred  until  July  1,  as  that  was  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year,  and  really  the 
close  of  the  term  for  which  Henrie  had  been  appointed.  By-the-way,  we 
might  remark  here  that  Henrie  was  appointed  in  March,  1889,  and  although 
the  additional  appropriation  made  by  the  Legislature  that  winter,  out  of  which 
Henrie  was  to  be  paid,  was  noft  available  for  that  purpose  until  July  1,  it  has 
not  yet  been  explained  where  the  money  came  from  that  Henrie  received  dur- 
ing the  first  four  months  he  was  employed  in  the  bureau.  The  State  Audi- 
tor’s printed  report,  however,  does  show  that  Betton  drew  out  of  the  State 
Treasury,  for  the  month  of  July,  1889  — the  first  month  of  the  fiscal  year  — 
$458  for  clerk  hire,  etc.,  exclusive  of  his  own  salary.  (Public  Documents,  1889- 
1890,  Yol.  I,  p.  277.)  Perhaps  a parallel  for  this  kind  of  financiering  can  be 
found  in  the  methods  he  employed  to  liquidate  the  $50  assessment  made  on 
Cougher  by  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee  last  fall. 

But  to  resume.  Betton’s  proposition  to  postpone  the  change  until  July  1st 
was  explained  to  be  for  the  reason  that  “if  Henrie  was  discharged  right  away 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature,  the  Alliance  people  would  say  they 
had  to  do  it,”  and  of  course  the  bosses  could  not  stand  that;  besides,  he  said, 
“it  had  been  decided  that  another  job  must  be  found  for  Henrie  before  he  was 
discharged  from  the  Labor  Bureau.”  In  the  meantime  Henrie  called  in  the 
influence  of  his  associates  in  the  campaign  of  1888,  and,  from  what  has  since 
transpired,  it  is  evident  that  the  fiat  went  forth  that  the  Governor  and  Betton 
must  repudiate  their  promise  to  the  trades-union  people.  No  individual  or 
corporation  has  yet  been  found  willing  to  take  Henrie  off  their  hands,  so  he 
still  remains  in  the  “service  of  the  State,”  in  direct  opposition  to  the  repeat- 
edly-expressed desires  of  the  workmen  citizens  of  the  commonwealth  — the 
very  class  for  whose  benefit  the  Labor  Bureau  was  originally  organized. 

Verily,  it  is  evident  they  had  to  take  him;  and  now  they  seem  to  be  main- 
taining the  bureau  for  his  benefit.  Why? 


CHAPTER  III 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  JUDGE  THEODOSIUS  BOTKIN— TRIAL  BEFORE 

THE  STATE  SENATE. 


Members  of  the  Senate  of  1891,  Constituting  the  Court  of  Impeachment  for  the 
Trial  of  Theodosius  Botkin,  Judge  of  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 
23 
2! 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 


Name. 

Age  . ... 

Post  office. 

County. 

' John  Schilling 

54 

Hiawatha 

Brown 

Henry  Elliston 

39 

Atchison 

Atchison 

Kd . Carrol  1 

Leaven  wort  h . . 

Leavenworth 

W.  J.  Buchan 

48 

Kansas  City,  Kas 

Wyandotte 

T.  M.  Carroll 

46 

Paola 

Miami 

1 Joel  Moody 

56 

Mound  City 

Linn 

W.W.  Martin 

51 

Fort  Scott 

Bourbon  

M.  C.  Kelley 

45 

Mulberry  Grove 

Crawford 

W.  S.  Norton 

46 

Scammon  ville 

Cherokee 

C.  H.  Kimball 

44 

Parsons 

Labette 

D.  McTasrgart 

50 

Liberty  

Montgomery 

S.  S.  Kirkpatrick 

44 

Fredonia 

Wilson 

0.  S.  Woodward 

55 

Neosho  Falls 

Woodson 

R.  W.  M.  Roe 

42 

Grenola 

Elk 

J.  L.  Senior 

36 

Waverly 

Coffey 

John  C.  Rankin 

40 

Quenemo 

Osage 

W.  C.  Howard 

49 

Bald  wi  n 

Douglas 

T.  A.  Osborn 

54 

Topeka 

Shawnee 

C.  F.  Johnson 

34 

Oskaloosa 

Jefferson 

John  K.  Wright 

56 

Junction  City 

Geary 

R M.  Emery 

36 

Seneca 

Nemaha 

E.  A.  Berry 

46 

Marysville 

Marshall 

F.  P.  Harkness 

35 

Clay  Center 

Clay 

H.  E.  Richter 

44 

Council  Grove 

Morris 

Edwin  Tucker 

53 

Eureka 

Green  wood 

1 T.  B.  Murdock 

45 

El  Dorado 

Butler 

L.  P.  King  

41 

Tannehill 

Cowley 

J.  W.  Forney 

50 

Belle  Plaine 

Sumner ^ 

().  H.  Bentley 

38 

Wichita 

Sedgwick 

H.  B.  Kelly 

48 

McPherson... 

McPherson 

J.  G.  Mohler 

47 

Salina 

Saline 

Sidney  C.  Wheeler 

45 

Concordia 

Cloud 

J.  H.  Mecbem 

31 

Mankat  o 

Jewell 

F.  M.  Lockard 

35 

Norton 

Norton 

R.  R.  Havs 

45 

Osborne 

Osborne 

S.  J.  Smith 

55 

Lyon  a. 

Rice  

F.  E.  Gillett 

43 

Kingman 

Kingman 

Chester  I.  Long 

30 

Medicine  Lodge  ...T 

Barber 

J.W.  Pai-h 

45 

Lamed 

Pawnee 

Hill  P.  Wilson  * 

50 

Hays  City 

Ellis 

Politics. 


Republican. 

Republican. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Alliance. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Republican. 


'Senator  Wilson,  of  the  Fortieth  District,  resigned  his  seat  before  the  Senate  met  to  try 
the  impeachment,  leaving  but  39  Senators  to  constitute  the  court. 

(187) 


188 


POPULIST  BAND-POOK. 


President 

President  pro  tem 

Secretary  

Reading  Clerk. 

Record  Clerk 

Journal  Clerk 

Sergeant-at-Arms 
Stenographer 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  COURT: 

A.  J.  Felt,  Lieutenant  Governor , Seneca. 

F.  P.  Harkness,  Senator  23d  District,  Clay  Center. 

A.  G.  Stacey,  Topeka. 

John  Q.  Royce,  Smith  Center. 

J.  J.  Maxwell,  Kansas  City. 

T.  J.  Jackson,  Newton. 

L.  C.  Smith,  Smith  Center. 

R.  A.  Henderson,  Topeka. 


A most  remarkable  trial  took  place  in  April  and  May,  1891,  before  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  State  of  Kansas,  sitting  as  a court  of  impeachment.  A judge  of 
the  State  district  court,  charged  with  crimes  enough  to  damn  him  to  eternal 
infamy,  was  tried  and  acquitted.  If  he  was  innocent,  his  acquittal  was  right. 
But  he  was  not  innocent  — he  was  guilty,  and  was  proven  guilty  beyond  a pos- 
sibility of  doubt.  Then  why  was  he  not  convicted?  Simply  because  he  was 
a Republican,  and  the  Senate  which  tried  him  was  Republican.  It  was  the 
common  boast  of  many  of  the  Senators,  in  advance  of  the  trial  and  during 
the  trial,  that  no  Republican  office-holder  should  be  convicted  and  removed 
from  office  by  a Republican  Senate.  That  the  reader  may  know  and  remem- 
ber the  Senators  who  composed  the  impeachment  court,  a list  copied  from 
the  official  record  of  the  trial  is  given  on  a preceding  page,  showing  the  dis- 
trict, residence,  and  politics  of  each  Senator.  Below  we  give  the  names  of  the 
Board  of  Managers  representing  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  also  a 
list  of  the  counsel  engaged  in  the  trial,  namely: 

On  the  27th  of  February,  1891,  the  House  of  Representatives  appointed  the 
the  following  members  of  the  House  as  a Board  of  Managers  to  conduct  the 
impeachment  of  Judge  Botkin,  namely:  A.  N.  Whittington,  chairman,  Repre- 
sentative 99th  District,  Lincoln,  Lincoln  county;  W.  H.  Mitchell,  Representa- 
tive 93d  District,  Huntsville,  Reno  county;  Geo.  H.  Coulson,  Representative 
88th  District,  Anthony,  Harper  county;  William  C.  Webb,  Representative  41st 
District,  Topeka,  Shawnee  county;  and  J.  B.  Coons,  Representative  17th  Dis- 
trict, Spring  HilJ,  Miami  county. 

The  counsel  for  the  State  were:  John  N.  Ives,  Attorney  General,  Topeka; 
Geo.  L.  Douglass,  of  Wichita:  and  A.  M.  Mackey,  of  Topeka.  The  last  two 
were  appointed  by  the  Board  of  Managers. 

The  counsel  for  respondent  were:  S.  B.  Bradford,  of  Topeka,  Shawnee 
county;  Thomas  S.  Haun,  of  Pittsburg,  Crawford  county;  Lewis  Hanback,  of 
Osborne,  Osborne  county;  J.  H.*Pitzer,  of  Arkalon,  Seward  county;  William 
Easton  Hutchison,  of  Ulysses,  Grant  county;  and  Wm.  P.  Hackney,  of  Win- 
field, Cowley  county. 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


189 


The  Political  Situation. — The  question  of  party  politics  — the  political 
views  or  faith  of  the  triers,  or  of  any  person  placed  upon  trial  — ought  not  to 
affect  a question  so  momentous  as  the  fitness  of  a man  to  fill  a great  judicial 
office;  but  it  not  only  did  affect  it  in  this  case,  but  actually  controlled  it,  so 
far  as  the  Senate  was  concerned.  And  as  that  body  made  party  politics  the 
criterion  of  guilt,  we  propose  to  show,  at  the  very  outset,  that  the  Senate  mis- 
represented and  wickedly  disregarded  the  political  sentiment  of  the  people  of 
Kansas. 

When  the  Legislature  of  1889  met  in  January  of  that  year,  every  State  offi- 
cer was  a Republican,  elected  at  the  general  election  of  1888,  by  pluralities 
over  the  Democratic  candidates  varying  from  83,909  for  Geo.  W.  Winans  for 
State  Superintendent  of  Schools,  down  to  73,361  for  Lyman  U.  Humphrey 
for  Governor;  and  by  majorities  over  all  other  candidates  ranging  from  35,- 
921  for  Mr.  Winans,  down  to  31,080  for  Governor  Humphrey.  The  Legisla- 
ture of  1889,  chosen  at  the  general  election  of  1888,  stood  thus:  In  the  Senate, 
39  Republicans  and  1 Democrat;  in  the  House,  121  Republicans,  3 Democrats, 
and  1 Union  Labor.  The  State  was  represented  in  Congress  by  2 Republican 
United  States  Senators,  and  7 Republican  Representatives.  At  the  general 
election  held  in  November,  1888,  the  State  had  given  Benjamin  Harrison,  Re- 
publican, for  President,  a plurality  of  80,159,  and  a majority  over  all  of  35,542. 
At  that  time  there  was  no  political  organization  in  the  State  known  as  the 
People’s  Party. 

Notice  the  changes  wrought  in  two  years.  At  the  election  held  in  Novem- 
ber, 1890^  the  Republican  majorities  had  disappeared.  In  1888,  Governor 
Humphrey’s  total  vote  was  180,841;  in  1890  it  was  only  115,025  — a loss  of 
65,816.  His  plurality  of  73,361  in  1888,  had  been  reduced  to  8,053  — a loss  of 
65,308.  His  majority  of  31,080  in  1888  had  disappeared,  and  there  was  a ma- 
jority of  the  popular  vote  against  him  of  64,538.  The  political  complexion 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  had  also  changed.  Instead  of  121  Republi- 
cans, as  in  1889,  the  House  of  Representatives  of  1891  contained  only  25  Re- 
publicans. Instead  .of  an  “opposition”  of  four  only,  there  were,  in  1891, 
7 Democrats  and  93  People’s  Paity  members.  One  vacancy  had  occurred 
in  the  Senate  in  a district  which,  in  1888,  had  elected  a Republican  by 
1,163  majority,  and  that  vacancy  had  been  filled  by  a People’s  Party  Senator, 
chosen  in  1890  by  a majority  of  1169*  Of  the  seven  Congressmen  elected  in 
November,  1890,  the  Republicans  elected  only  two,  and  the  People’s  Party 
elected  five.  Instead  of  a Republican  majority  of  155  on  joint  ballot,  as  in 
the  Legislature  in  1889,  the  Legislature  of  1891  had  a People’s  Party  majority 
of  31,  and  elected  a People’s  Party  man  for  United  States  Senator,  and  a 
People’s  Party  man  for  State  Printer. 


190 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


The  following  figures  show  the  actual  result  of  the  State  election  held  in  No- 
vember, 1890,  and  are  worth  remembering: 


Candidates. 

Plurality. 

Actual 

majority 

against. 

Humphrey,  Governor 

8,053 

4,915 

5,036 

8,443 

5,430 

7,139- 

64,538 

53,409 

52,155 

49,780 

51,676 

49,701 

Felt,  Lieutenant  Governor 

Higgins,  Secretary  of  State 

Hovey,  Auditor  of  State 

Stover,  Treasurer  of  State 

Winans,  Supt.  of  Public  Instruction . 

For  Attorney  General,  L.  B.  Kellogg,  Republican,  received  122,752  votes  — 
being  7,727  more  than  Mr.  Humphrey  received  for  Governor,  2,284  more  than 
Mr.  Felt  received  for  Lieutenant  Governor,  1,783  more  than  Mr.  Higgins  re- 
ceived for  Secretary  of  State,  1,504  more  than  Mr.  Hovey  received  for  State 
Auditor,  1,435  more  than  Mr.  Stover  received  for  State  Treasurer,  and  591 
more  than  Mr.  Winans  received  for  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion, and  yet  Mr.  Kelloggwas  defeated.  His  opponent,  John  N.  Ives,  received 
170,665  votes,  being  the  united  vote  of  the  People’s  Party  and  Democrats, 
and  was  elected  — his  majority  over  Mr.  Kellogg  and  “scattering”  being  47,708.  ^ 
The  following  figures  are  equally  instructive  respecting  the  vote  in  the  sev- 
eral Congressional  Districts,  at  the  November  election,  1890: 


District. 

Total 

Republican 
vote.  * 

Total 

opposi- 

tion. 

First  district 

14,630 

17,713 

20,478; 

22,609 

Second  district 

Third  district 

19,061 

. 23,492 

24,996 

Fourth  district 

19,994 

13,998 

12,105 

Fifth  district 

22,821 

Sixth  district 

21,049 

Seventh  district.  

25,181 

32,612 

Totals  in  the  State 

122,682 

168,057 

These  figures  show  an  opposition  majority  in  the  State  of  45,375  on  the 
congressional  vote;  but  the  Republicans  elected  their  candidates,  in  the  First 
district  by  a plurality  of  1,380,  and  in  ’the  Second  district  by  a plurality  of 
5,440. 

And  here  is  still  another  showing  of  the  Waterloo  which  overtook  the* 
“grand  old  party”  in  1890.  As  already  stated,  the  Senate  chosen  in  1888 
consisted  of  39  Republicans  and  1 Democrat.  Take  the  vote  cast  for  Mr. 
Ives  for  Attorney  General  in  1890  as  representing  the  opposition  to  Repub- 
lican rule  and  mismanagement,  and  the  vote  for  Mr.  Kellogg  as  representing 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


191 


the  Republican  strength,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  only  four  of  the  39  districts 
gave  Republican  majorities  in  1890,  and  these  were  greatly  reduced  — thus: 


DISTRICT. 

S&n+Twv 

1888. 

1890. 

Rep. 

vote. 

Oppo- 

sition. 

Rep. 

moj. 

Rep. 

vote. 

Oppo- 

sition. 

Rep. 

maj. 

First  district 

4,260 

2,986 

3,215 

7,726 

3,763 

2,203 

2,071 

3,361 

497 

783 

1,184 

4,365 

3,960 

2,536 

2,671 

5,132 

3,601 

2,483 

2,362 

4,968 

359 

53 

309 

164 

Thirteenth  district ..froac/eu 

Seventeenth  district '.A6P.idHeKrA+... 

Eighteenth  district jPj^L*crr*K~... 

And  in  35  Senatorial  Districts  there  were  unquestioned  majorities  for  the 
People’s  Party  in  1890,  thus: 


DISTRICTS. 

1888. 

- 

1890. 

Rep. 

vote. 

Oppo- 

sition. 

Rep. 

moj. 

Rep. 

vote. 

Oppo- 

sition. 

Opp. 
m,nj . 

Second  district 

3,009 

2,919 

90 

2,385 

2,926 

541 

Fourth  district . 

5,101 

4,532 

569 

3,203 

4,008 

805 

Fifth  district Jfc.fa&<A<Ki4r4L 

4,164 

3;  931 

233 

3,663 

4,645 

982 

Sixth  district 

3,676 

3,262 

414 

3,480 

3,646 

166 

Seventh  district 

3,470 

2,665 

705 

2,476 

2,955 

479 

Eighth  district.  . JtalC. 

3,211 

3,202 

9 

2,466 

3,891 

1,425 

Ninth  district  (a) 

2,656 

2,121 

535 

1,955 

3,737 

1,782 

Tenth  district 

2,790 

2,788 

2 

2,277 

3,247 

970 

Eleventh  district  ( b ) 

2,658 

2,330 

323 

2,423 

2?801 

378 

Twelfth  district 

4,285 

3,875 

410 

3,511 

4,054 

543 

Fourteenth  district 

3,145 

2,364 

781 

2,598 

2,841 

243 

Fifteenth  district  (c) 

4,188 

1,978 

2,210 

3,338 

4,722 

1,384 

Sixteenth  district 

3,433 

2,480 

953 

2,122 

3,438 

1,316 

Ninteenth  district 

4,176 

3,069 

1,107 

3,445 

3,578 

133 

Twentieth  district 

4,452 

2,774 

1,678 

2,847 

4,416 

1,569 

Twenty  first  district 

4,910 

3,303 

1,607 

3,654 

4,759 

1,105 

Twenty-second  district 

5,719 

3,956 

1,763 

3,609 

6,481 

2,872 

Twenty-third  district 

4,638 

3,456 

1.182 

2,989 

5,151 

2,162 

Twenty-fourth  district 

5,302 

2,935 

2,367 

3,780 

4,552 

772 

Twenty-fifth  district 

5,281 

3,369 

1,812 

3,479 

5,019 

1,540 

Twenty-sixth  district 

2,956 

2,670 

286 

2,144 

2,998 

854 

Twenty-seventh  district 

4,053 

3,547 

506 

3,140 

3,843 

703 

Twenty-eighth  district 

3,501 

3,457 

44 

2,490 

3,833 

1,343 

Tweut.y-ninth  district  ( d ) . 

5,312 

4,607 

705 

2,412 

6,807 

4,395 

Thirtieth  district 

4,386 

3,832 

• 554 

3,457 

4,082 

625 

Thirty-first  district 

3,803 

2,710 

1,093 

2,451 

3,879 

1,428 

Thirty-second  district  ( e ) .0. 

4,339 

3,176 

1,163 

3,123 

4,650 

1,527 

Thirty-third  district TKJLAaA* r*r**%w 

3,941 

3,100 

841 

2,572 

4,182 

1,610 

Thirty-fourth  district 

4,872 

3,914 

958 

2,537 

4,325 

1,788 

Thirty-fifth  district  

4,843 

3,018 

1,825 

2,881 

4,680 

1,799 

Thirty-sixth  district  (/) 

4,152 

3,811 

341 

2,870 

4,912 

2,042 

Thirty-seventh  district 

5,607 

4,877 

730 

4,000 

5,862 

1,862 

Thirty-eighth  district  (g) 

3,992 

3,945 

47 

2,297 

4,067 

1,770 

Thirty-ninth  district 

9,882 

7,157 

2,725 

5,186 

5,267 

81 

Fortieth  district 

10,633 

7,316 

3,317 

5,382 

8,026 

2,644 

Note. — For  explanation  of  reference  marks  see  the  following  page.  / a 


POPULIST  HAND  BOOK. 


192 

The  foregoing  is  a correct  showing  of  the  result  of  the  election  in  Kansas 
in  1890.  One  would  naturally  think  that  upon  such  an  uprising  on  the  part 
of  the  people,  and  such  a condemnation  of  the  party  so  long  in  absolute 
power  in  Kansas,  that  the  Republicans  of  the  State  would  have  called  a halt, 
and  taken  counsel  as  to  the  future.  Not  so.  Their  meager  but  humiliating 
plurality  on  the  State  ticket  had  apparently  maddened  them.  With  a Repub- 
lican Governor,  although  defeated  by  the  popular  will  by  more  than  64,000 
votes,  to  sustain  them  in  their  action,  the  Republican  Senate  assumed  an  in- 
solent and  offensive  superiority  over  the  House  of  Representatives,  mani- 
fested an  utter  disregard  for  the  people  of  the  State,  and  from  the  very  outset 
showed  a purpose  to  insult  the  People’s  Party  (or  the  “Alliance,”  as  they 
chose  to  call  it);  and  they  not  only  manifested  a studied  purpose,  but  sev- 
eral of  the  more  insolent  members  of  the  Senate  openly  declared  it  their  pur- 
pose to  trample  upon  and  defeat  every  measure  of  a legislative  character 
which  the  People’s  Party  in  the  House  undertook  to  accomplish.  And  even 
those  measures  inaugurated  in  the  interests  of  the  people  of  the  State,  which 
met  the  approval  and  received  the  support  of  some  of  the  Republican  Rep- 
resentatives, fared  no  better  in  the  Senate.  It  was  apparent  to  all  observing 
men  that  the  Senate,  as  a body,  was  alike  insolent  and  arrogant,  and  was 
bound  to  “sit  down  on  the  Alliance  (or  People’s  Party)  House”  (as  some  of 
the  Senators  frequently  declared  they  would  do),  on  every  possible  occasion. 
In  their  mad  haste  to  exhibit  their  assumed  superiority,  they  failed  to  realize 
the  fact  that  35  out  of  the  40  of  their  number  had  been  condemned  by  the 
emphatic  voice  of  the  people  of  their  respective  districts  at  the  ballot-box, 


(а)  In  the  Ninth  district  in  1888  there  were  four  candidates,  and  there  was  an  anti-Repub- 
lican  majority  of  960 ; but  the  Republican  candidate  received  a plurality  of  535. 

(б)  In  the  Eleventh  district  in  1888  there  were  three  candidates,  and  there  was  an  anti- 
Republican  majority  of  365;  but  a Republican  was  elected  by  328  plurality. 

(c)  There  were  four  candidates  in  the  Fifteenth  district  in  1888,  and  there  was  a Republican 
minority  of  113,  but  a Republican  plurality  of  2,210. 

(d)  In  1888  there  were  four  candidates  in  the  Twenty-ninth  district.  The  anti-Republican 
majority  was  174.  Republican  plurality,  705. 

( e ) Senator  Swearingen,  of  the  Thirty-second  district,  elected  in  1888,  died,  and  in  Decem- 
ber, 1890,  Sidney  C.  Wheeler,  People’s  Party,  was  elected  to  fill  the  vacancy.  His  majority  over 
John  W.  Sheafor,  Republican,  was  1169. 

(/)  Senator  Chapman,  of  the  Thirty-sixth  district,  who  was  elected  in  1888,  resigned  in  1889; 
and  at  the  general  election  held  in  1889,  the  vacancy  was  filled  by  the  election  of  S.  J.  Smith, 
Republican,  by  a majority  of  1,923,  over  Joshua  Good.  In  1890  this  district  gave  a majority  in 
favor  of  the  People’s  Party  of  2,042. 

( g ) Senator  Price,  of  the  Thirty-eighth  district,  who  was  elected  in  1888,  resigned  in  1889, 
and  at  the  November  election  held  in  1889,  Chester  I.  Long,  Republican,  was  elected  over  A.  M. 
VanLaningham  by  695  majority.  In  1890  this  district  gave  the  People’s  Party  a majority  of 
1,770. 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL „ 


193 


and  that  they  were  thereafter  misrepresenting  their  constituents.  These  faith- 
less Senators  carried  their  wicked  disregard  of  the  people  and  the  people’s 
rights  to  the  full  extent  of  opposing  whatever  the  People’s  Party  supported; 
and  a like  spirit  of  political  partisanship  was  carried  into  the  Botkin  im- 
peachment case,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  following  pages. 

The  Thirty-second  Judicial  District. — The  Legislature,  at  its  session  in 
1889  — having  121  Republicans  in  the  House  out  of  125  members,  and  39  Re- 
publicans in  the  Senate  out  of  40  members  — created  the  Thirty-second  Judi- 
cial District.  There  was  no  possible  need  of  any  such  district  — no  excuse 
for  creating  it.  The  district  comprises  six  counties  lying  in  the  southwest 
corner  of  the  State.  Taking  the  official  figures  of  the  general  elections  held 
in  1888,  1889,  and  1890,  as  found  in  the  reports  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  and 
official  figures  of  the  United  States  census  taken  in  1890,  and  it  will  be  seen 
that'the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District  must  have  been  created  by  a Repub- 
lican Legislature  for  the  sole  purpose  of  making  a fat  place  for  some  Re- 
publican, with  practically  nothing  to  do  for  the  people.  It  will  be  seen,  too, 
from  the  total  vote  cast  in  the  years  named,  that  the  population  there  in  1888 
was  to  a large  extent  temporary,  or  the  vote  in  one  year  would  not  have  been 
reduced  1,505,  and  in  another  year  further  reduced  548.  Here  are  the  figures: 


Counties. 

Total  vote , 
1888. 

Total  vote , 
1889. 

Total  vote , 
1890. 

Popu- 
lation, 
1890. 

Seward 

657 

471 

276 

1,502 

1,404 

Stevens 

659 

409 

306 

Morton 

574 

299 

211 

723 

Stanton 

549 

287 

250 

1,031 

Grant 

690 

338 

293 

1,307 

Haskell 

511 

331 

251 

1,069 

Total  in  district 

3,640 

2,135 

1,587 

7,036 

The  judicial  district  adjoining  the  Thirty-second  on  the  east,  and  that  ad- 
joining it  on  the  north,  are  both  small  in  population  and  business;  but  with 
these  we  have  not  now  to  deal.  Of  the  remaining  thirty-two  districts,  four 
contain  more  than  60,000  people  eachr  and  the  remainder  contain  an  average 
of  37,000  population.  It  needs  no  argument  to  show  that  the  Thirty-second 
district,  with  its  total  population  of  only  7,036,  and  its  vote  so  small  that  not 
one  of  the  six  counties  was  entitled  to  representation  in  the  lower  house  of  the 
Legislature  at  the  sessions  of  1889  and  1891,  ought  never  to  have  been  created. 
B3t  it  was  created;  and  on  its  creation,  Governor  Humphrey  appointed  Mr. 
Botkin  judge,  and  at  the  November  election  held  in  1889  he  was  elected  by  the 
people,  The  above  total  of  votes  cast  in  the  district  in  1889  represents  1,357 


194 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


votes  cast  for  Botkin,  and  778  cast  for  S.  N.  Wheeler  for  district  judge.  Judge 
Botkin  was  a Republican,  appointed  by  the  Governor  as  a reward  for  politi- 
cal services;  hence  it  would  not  do  to  remove  him  from  office  for  any  cause 
whatever. 

Peeliminaey  Proceedings. — The  proceedings  of  the  Botkin  impeachment 
case  fill  two  large  volumes,  aggregating  1,402  pages,  exclusive  of  the  index. 
Two  thousand  copies  were  printed  and  bound.  Every  member  of  the  Senate 
constituting  the  court  was  furnished  with  twenty  copies,  and  every  member 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  1891  was  furnished  with  five  copies.  Most 
of  the  remaining  copies  went  to  the  State  officers  and  judges.  The  full  re- 
port of  the  trial  is  therefore  within  the  reach  of  anyone  who  wishes  to  test  the 
accuracy  of  this  synopsis. 

We  propose  to  make  a correct  synopsis  of  this  remarkable  trial,  showing 
its  origin,  the  politics  of  those  who  inaugurated  it,  its  political  significance, 
the  proof  of  Botkin’s  guilt,  and  the  political  and  legal  villainy  of  the  Senators 
who  acquitted  Botkin.  And  first  we  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  was  not 
the  People’s  Party  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  nor  members  of  the  Peo- 
ple’s Party  in  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  that  inaugurated  the  pro- 
ceedings for  his  impeachment  and  removal. 

The  official  journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  shows  that  on  the  6fch 
of  February,  1891,  Mr.  Webb,  a Republican  member  from  Shawnee  county, 
presented  to  the  House  four  petitions,  asking  for  the  removal  from  office  of 
Theodosius  Botkin,  as  judge  of  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  “for  un- 
fitness, immorality,  and  corruption  in  office.”  It  may  be  asked  why  a Repre- 
sentative residing  so  far  from  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District  presented 
these  petitions,  and  why  a Republican  presented  them.  Mr.  Webb  himself 
made  answer  to  these  questions  at  the  trial.  He  was  one  of  the  Board  of 
Managers  appointed  by  the  House  of  Representatives  to  conduct  the  trial  on 
the  part  of  the  House,  and  being  attacked  by  Mr.  Botkin’s  counsel  for  his 
connection  with  the  case,  he  answered  fully  in  his  argument  before  the  Sen- 
ate. (See  Impeachment  Trial,  pp.  1342  to  1372.)  We  quote  from  Mr.  Webb’s 
address  as  follows: 

“It  was  charged  by  Mr.  Hackney  [attorney  for  Judge  Botkin]  that  I was 
actuated  by  malice  in  whatever  I have  done  and  have  been  doing  in  thib  pros- 
ecution against  the  respondent.  There  is  not  one  word  of  truth  in  it.  I 
never  entertained,  and  do  not  entertain  at  this  moment,  anything  but  the 
kindliest  feelings  for  the  respondent.  . . . When  last  winter  I intro- 

duced the  petition  in  the  House  of  Representatives  praying  that  action 
be  taken  against  the  respondent  for  his  removal  from  office,  I did  so 
only  after  the  most  repeated  solicitation  on  the  part  of  men  who  reside  in  the 
Thirty-second  Judicial  District.  I refused  again  and  again;  and  was  finally 
induced  to  act,  only  because  there  was  no  Representative  there  from  any  one 
of  the  six  counties  in  that  judicial  district.  Those  counties  were  represented 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


195 


by  ‘Delegates,’  so-called,  who  were  not  members  of  the  House,  possessing  the 
right  to  present  propositions  or  to  vote.  When  I inquired  as  to  who  were  the 
complaining  parties,  I was  informed  they  were  H.  F.  Thompson,  the  editor  of 
the  Springfield  Republican;  C.  L.  Calvert,  a real-estate  man;  J.  F.  Van  Voor- 
his,  the  chairman  of  the  Republican  Central  Committee  of  Seward  county;  S. 
A.  Klein,  the  postmaster  of  Springfield;  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bradley  — all  of 
whom  except  Mr.  Bradley  were  prominent  Republicans  residing  in  the  same 
county  in  which  the  respondent  then  resided  and  still  resides.  Mr.  Bradley 
told  me  that  although  he  took  no  active  part  in  politics  he  was  a Republican, 
and  voted  the  Republican  ticket.” 

This  shows  that  the  People’s  Party  as  a party  was  not  responsible  for  the 
preliminary  proceedings  against  Judge  Botkin.  The  House  Journal  shows 
that  Mr.  Webb  on  the  6th  of  February  introduced  four  petitions,  numbered 
respectively  House  petitions  Nos.  152,  153,  154,  and  155,  and  Mr.  Webb 
moved  that  said  House  petition  No.  152  be  read  at  length,  and  be  spread  upon 
the  journal  of  the  House,  and  that  300  copies  thereof  be  printed  without  de- 
lay for  the  use  of  the  members  of  the  Legislative.  This  motion  was  adopted, 
and  the  petition  will  be  found  at  length  in  the  House  Journal  at  pages  306  to 
314,  and  in  the  Impeachment  Trial  at  pages  5 to  13. 

A brief  abstract  of  petition  No.  152  must  suffice  here.  It  alleged  that 
Theo.  Botkin,  while  occupying  the  official  position  as  judge  of  the  Thirty- 
second  Judicial  District,  had  been  repeatedly  intoxicated  in  public  places 
since  his  appointment  and  election  as  judge;  that  he  was  continuously  using 
intoxicating  liquors  during  the  entire  term  of  the  district  court  of  Seward 
county,  in  January,  1890,  and  was  more  or  less  under  the  influence  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors;  that  he  was  repeatedly  intoxicated  during  the  June  term  1890 
of  said  district  court;  that  at  the  January  term  1891  of  said  district  court,  he 
was  repeatedly  under  the  influence  of  intoxicating  liquors,  and  while  in  that 
condition  abused  and  vilified  reputable  citizens  of  said  county,  and  threatened 
to  incarcerate  them  in  the  jail  of  said  county  for  expressing  their  opinions 
regarding  his  conduct  and  his  official  acts;  that  during  the  April  term  1890  of 
the  district  court  of  Grant  county,  said  Botkin  was  under  the  influence  of  in- 
toxicating liquor  during  nearly  all  of  said  term,  and  was  also  a frequenter  of 
places  where  intoxicating  liquors  were  sold  in  violation  of  law;  and  that  it 
was  a daily  occurrence  for  said  Botkin  to  have  intoxicating  liquors  brought 
to  his  room  for  his  use  and  consumption.  It  also  charged  that  said  Botkin, 
while  at  Garden  City,  in  the  summer  of  1890,  was  drunk  and  disorderly;  and 
that  in  Seward  county,  in  1889,  he  was  engaged  in  gambling,  and  while  so  en- 
gaged was  drinking  heavily  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

Said  petition  also  charged  that  Judge  Botkin  had  caused  two  suits  to  be 
pommenced  against  the  mayor  and  councilmen  of  the  city  of  Springfield,  or 
some  of  them  (one  of  which  actions  was  civil  and  the  other  criminal),  both 


196 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


actions  being  commenced  without  any  legal  cause;  that  by  means  of  these 
proceedings  he  had  aided  in  the  robbery  of  the  city  of  Springfield  of  more 
than  $5,000,  immediately  after  which  both  actions  were  dismissed;  and  it  was 
also  charged  that  Judge  Botkin  had  illegally  ordered  the  arrest  and  imprison- 
ment of  four  citizens  of  the  State,  without  any  cause,  and  through  malice  and 
for  oppression  and  revenge.  This  petition  was  signed  by  J.  F.  Van  Voorhis, 
H.  F.  Thompson,  C.  L.  Calvert,  S.  A.  Klein,  and  W.  E.  Ralstin,  all  citizens  of 
Springfield,  and  all  Republicans,  and  was  sworn  to  before  the  Clerk  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  at  Topeka  by  said  W.  E.  Ralstin.  It  was  this  petition  so  signed 
and  so  verified  that  Mr.  Webb  presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 
The  other  three  petitions  presented  by  Mr.  Webb  were  as  follows: 

To  the  Honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Kan- 
sas: We,  the  undersigned  legal  voters  of  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District 
of  Kansas,  would  most  respectfully  represent,  that  by  common  report,  which 
we  believe  to  be  true,  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  of  this  judicial  district,  is  in- 
competent, guilty  of  oppression  in  office,  a gambler,  a habitual  drunkard,  and 
is  corrupt  in  office.  We  believe  the  above  charges  can  be  proven  by  abund- 
ant and  undisputed  evidence.  We  therefore  pray  your  honorable  bodies  to 
remove  him  from  office;  and  as  in  duty  bound  we  will  ever  pray. 

These  petitions  were  severally  indorsed  as  follows  (see  Impeachment  Trial, 
p.  14,  and  House  Jour.  p.  305): 

House  Petition  No.  153. — Petition  of  W.  H.  Swartz  and  A.  R.  Kilgore, 
county  commissioners,  and  110  other  legal  voters  of  Stevens  county,  charging 
Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  of  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  as  incompe- 
tent, guilty  of  oppression  in  office,  a gambler,  a habitual  drunkard,  and  cor- 
rupt in  office,  and  praying  that  he  be  removed*from  office. 

House  Petition  No.  154. — Petition  of  W.  E.  Ralstin  and  74  other  legal 
voters  of  Seward  county , charging  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  of  $he  Thirty- 
second  Judicial  District,  as  incompetent,  guilty  of  oppression  in  office,  a 
gambler,  a habitual  drunkard,  and  corrupt  in  office,  and  praying  that  he  be 
removed  from  office. 


House  Petition  No.  155. — Petition  of  C.  L.  Mann  and  30  other  legal  voters 
of  Grant  county , charging  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  of  the  Thirty-second  Ju- 
dicial District,  as  incompetent,  guilty  of  oppression  in*  office,  a gambler,  a 
habitual  drunkard,  and  corrupt  in  office,  and  praying  that  he  be  removed 
from  office. 


It  will  be  noticed  that  three  petitions  were  from  different  counties.  Peti- 
tion No.  153,  from  Stevens  county,  contained  the  following  names: 


W.  H.  Swartz,  Co.  Com. 
A.  R.  Kilgore,  Co.  Com. 
A.  M.  Jines. 

F.  N.  Haseltine. 

John  M.  Doan. 

Asa  R.  Hackett. 

A.  C.  Hanison, 

J.  M.  Ladd? 


J.  L.  Rouse. 

J.  E.  Hunt. 
John  Wilson. 

P.  S.  Neathery. 
Wm.  Bundy. 

0.  W.  Kirby. 

F.  M.  Harper. 

J acob  Glickler. 


S.  E.  Shue. 

A.  F.  Pitts. 

W.  Crawford. 

J.  D.  Crofard. 

W.  V.  Crofard. 

A.  C.  Ball. 

T.  J.  Thornburgh. 
F.  A.  Eichler. 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL.  1!>7 


J.  M.  Myers. 

Alfred  Harper. 

J.  C.  McClay. 

A.  W.  Welch. 

W.  F.  Perkins. 

Wesley  Wirt. 

E.  Holloway. 

Job  Troggatte. 

J.  C.  Genoud. 

Wm.  G.  Little. 

Joe  P.  Jackman. 

Isaac  Reynolds. 

L.  0.  Church. 

G.  G.  Clark. 

T.  H.  Bottorff. 

Samuel  Church. 

John  W.  Whelchel. 

A.  Thieme. 

Sol.  Church. 

Sam.  Montgomery. 

Hensen  Thieme. 

Norton  Hocket. 

Jacob  Liniger. 

August  Thieme. 

Wesley  Hockett. 

Joseph  Neer. 

Herman  Miller. 

T.  E.  Hackett. 

Samuel  Campbell. 

Sam’l  Misgon. 

John  Moore. 

Amos  Greathouse. 

Perry  Carpenter. 

C.  H.  Boles. 

Fred.  F.  Clark. 

Wm.  M.  Peck. 

E.  Dudley. 

F.  Plantz. 

Joel  Bennett. 

L.  L.  Bannister. 

W.  W.  Ramsey. 

Wm.  Hamilton. 

J.  A.  Redpath. 

J.  W.  Sutton. 

J.  C.  Hamilton. 

A.  J.  Hopper. 

J.  S.  Lock. 

Geo.  Brown. 

G.  J.  Ashworth. 

Thomas  W.  Campbell. 

Wm.  Lowe. 

C.  H.  Deshler. 

B.  F.  French. 

J.  D.  Guy. 

A.  A.  Dunmire. 

Pierce  Trox. 

Jacob  Little. 

J.  D.  Bolin. 

T.  T.  Smith. 

Perry  Hurtsman. 

J.  D.  Matthews. 

Wm.  H.  Stoughton. 

A.  C.  Morrell. 

S.  H.  Marquis. 

J.  W.  Williams. 

C.  R.  Wright,  J.P. 

C.  McShurley. 

H.  Riggle. 

R.  F.  Furnas,  M.D. 

R.  F.  Furnas. 

0.  P.  Bucklin. 

Wm.  Wells. 

M.  0.  Groff. 

Taylor  Fox. 

I.  T.  Rhodes. 

Jno.  B.  Patrick. 

J.  P.  Nugen. 

E.  P.  Ludwick. 

Geo.  H.  Byers. 

M.  Smith. 

W.  I5.  McClure. 

Bert  Adams. 

C.  W.  Chapman. 

C.  S.  Kilgore. 

E.  M.  Watson. 

Petition  No.  154,  from  Seward  county,  contained 

the  following  names  of 

petitioners,  all  of  whom  resided  in  Seward  county;  those  marked  with  a star 

(*)  were  witnesses  before  the  Senate  on  the  impeachment  trial: 

W.  E.  Ralstin.* 

C.  S.  Anderson. 

Charles  Brial. 

J.  F.  Van  Voorhis.* 

Alex.  Templeton. 

J.  R.  Lambert. 

S.  A.  Klein.* 

G.  Tillbury. 

Frank  Garinger. 

A.  S.  McKitrick. 

J.  J.  Lench. 

M.  R.  Conrad. 

A.  C.  Benedict. 

W.  E.  Ross. 

W.  L.  Dexter. 

J.  A.  L.  Williams.* 

Joseph  Waggoner.* 

Robert  Haunum. 

J.  M.  Mullet. 

J.  0.  Haunum. 

Henry  Rodabaugh. 

A.  McCoyd. 

William  Tillbury. 

J.  M.  Lowder. 

C.  L.  Calvert  * 

T.  B.  Russell. 

C.  W.  Moore. 

H.  F.  Thompson.* 

C.  H.  Rhoades. 

S.  B.  Foster. 

Sam.  C.  Jones. 

J.  T.  Boon. 

John  R.  Garinger. 

Sylvester  Barb. 

W.  H.  Cooper. 

W.  M.  Milner. 

Chas.  C.  Yane. 

A.  D.  Lamberson. 

Jas.  M.  Smith. 

J.  S.  Conrad. 

J.  N.  Orner. 

Oliver  Bennett. 

J.  M.  Singer. 

C.  W.  Robinson. 

G.  P.  Leighton.* 

Oscar  F.  Osten. 

W.  B.  Orner. 

0.  H.  Stafford. 

Lewis  P.  Garinger. 

A.  T.  Shahan. 

A.  L.  Davis.* 

J.  R.  Mahaffey. 

F.  L.  Rhineg. 

C.  P.  Juvenal. 

—12 


198 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


A.  H.  Saunders. 
Will.  R.  Smith. 
M.  L.  Trout.* 

H.  Glitsch* 
Rowan  Chase. 
Chas.  Thomas. 
Wm.  H.  Minton. 


John  Akin. 

Wm.  McKitrick, 
H.  A.  Saunders. 
J.  A.  Wemple.* 
N.  L.  Mathis. 

H.  C.  Nelson. 

G.  B.  Epps. 


Zadok  Bennett. 
S.  H.  Newton. 
W.  L.  Robinson 
Elsie  Hedrick. 
Kinzer  Rhewby. 
Alvin  Watson. 
Henry  Thele. 


Petition  No.  155  was  signed  by  the  following-named  petitioners,  all  of  whom 
resided  in  Grant  county;  those  marked  with  a star  (*)  were  witnesses  before 
the  Senate  at  the  trial: 


C.  L.  Mann. 

J.  B.  Moore.* 

D.  S.  Fleming.* 
R.  H.  Martin. 
Geo.  W.  Dobson. 
C.  A.  Moore. 
Wm.  McCall. 

C.  McCall. 

C.  F.  Blake. 

J.  F.  Rosel. 

G.  A.  Pearson. 


C.  H.  Lowderman. 
W.  T.  Sawyer. 
Samuel  Gilmer. 

M.  S.  Burson. 

C.  H.  North. 

W.  A.  Heston. 

Wm.  Trueblood. 
Clark  Howell. 
John  M.  Kell. 

G.  H.  Kell. 


J.  D.  Taggart. 
J.  H.  Hardin. 
T.  S.  Neely. 

S.  M.  Wood. 

F.  A.  Davis. 

E.  C.  Westfall. 
J.  N.  Elwood. 
R.  H.  Elwood. 
A.  F.  Kitchen. 
C.  P.  Bowers. 


At  a later  date,  namely,  on  February  13th,  Mr.  Jackson,  of  McPherson 
county,  introduced  “House  Petition  No.  183  — Petition  of  W.  H.  Hussey, 
county  clerk,  C.  W.  Brewer,  county  superintendent,  and  65  other  legal  voters 
of  Haskell  county , in  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  charging  Theodosius 
Botkin,  judge  of  said  district,  with  being  incompetent,  guilty  of  oppression  in 
office,  a gambler,  an  habitual  drunkard,  and  corruption  in  office,  and  praying 
for  his  removal  from  office.”  Said  petition  contained  the  following  names 
— those  marked  R.  are  Republicans,  those  marked  D.  are  Democrats,  those 
marked  P.  P.  are  People’s  Party  men,  and  those  marked  U.  L.  belong  to  the 
Union  Labor  party: 


W.  H.  Hussey,  county  clerk,  R. 

C.  W.  Brewer,  county  supt.,  R. 

H.  F.  Millikan,  register  of  deeds,  R. 
S.  W.  Snyder,  township  trustee,  R. 
W.  Y.  Marshall,  postmaster,  R. 

John  J.  Miller,  editor,  R. 

W.  W.  Rhinehart,  R. 

N.  D.  Pierrepont,  R. 

James  K.  Stanley,  R. 

H.  C.  Murphy,  R. 

Will.  Stanley,  R. 

George  S.  Wallace,  R. 

J.  Jobe,  R. 

S.  L.  Towell,  R. 

A.  Wright,  R. 


S.  McNeeley,  probate  judge,  P.P. 
A.  F.  Pierce,  township  trustee,  D. 

R.  F.  Kells,  township  trustee,  R. 

S.  Rhinehart,  merchant,  R. 

A.  C.  Miller,  printer,  R. 

M.  O.  Powers,  book-keeper,  R. 

J.  M.  Pace,  D. 

Levi  Henthorn,  D. 

H.  Kite,  D. 

David  Rhine,  D. 
James  Counsel),  D. 
James  H.  Moore,  D. 
S.  W.  Anderson,  D. 

E.  G.  Webb,  D. 

A.  R.  Fields,  D. 


Benj.  F.  Moore, R. 

W.  D.  Evans,  R. 
James  Armstrong,  R. 
Ab.  Shacklett,  D. 

T.  Reeves,  R. 

R.  L.  McConaughy,  R. 
L.  D.  Meredith,  R. 

F.  A.  Burkhill,  R. 

C.  Imhofif,  D. 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


199 


H.  Cobb,  R. 

Arthur  Nofziger,  R. 
S.  G.  Bishop,  R. 

P.  P.  Pace,  R. 

W.  A.  Kells,  R. 

H.  W.  Day,  R. 
Samuel  Loy,  R . 

J.  M.  Wingar,  R. 
Ed.  Russell,  R. 

Janz  M.  Finder,  R. 


L.  P.  McNutt,  D. 

E.  M.  McMahan,  D. 
Chas.  Harshman,  D. 
Ed.  Yoer,  D. 

C.  E.  Adrus,  D. 

C.  P.  Nofziger,  D. 

J.  N.  Shipley,  D. 

R.  Armstrong,  D. 
Frank  Payne,  D. 


• J.  R.  Fields,  D. 
John  Anderson,  D. 
Zalmon  Fenton,  D. 
W.  T.  Willett,  U.L. 
Reuben  Davis,  U.L. 
C.  C.  Leedom,  R. 

J.  E.  Austin,  R. 

L.  J.  Herser,  R. 
Wm.  Seelye,  R. 


Let  it  be  observed,  that  out  of  the  67  names  on  this  Haskell  county  peti- 
tion 41  are  Republicans,  of  whom  six  are  public  officers,  and  one  an  editor  of 
a Republican  newspaper,  while  there  is  only  one  People’s  Party  man  on  the 
petition.  On  the  Stevens,  Seward  and  Grant  county  petitions  there  are  not 
less  than  two  Republicans  to  one  of  all  other  parties.  So,  instead  of  the  pro- 
ceedings against  Judge  Botkin  being  instituted  by  the  “Alliance,”  or  People’s 
Party,  they  were  originated  by  and  among  Republicans,  and  because  of  his 
unfitness  for  the  office  he  held,  and  not  for  any  political  reason. 

House  Proceedings. — The  petitions  introduced  by  Mr.  Webb  having  been 
read,  and  ordered  printed,  Mr.  Doolittle,  of  Chase  county,  introduced  the  fol- 
lowing concurrent  resolution  (see  House  Journal,  p.  814): 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives , the  Senate  concurring,  That  a 
special  committee  of  five  on  the  part  of  the  House  and  three  on  the  part  of 
the  Senate  be  appointed  to  investigate  the  charges  preferred  by  J.  F.  Van 
Voorhis  and  others  against  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  of  the  Thirty-second 
Judicial  District,  and  report  by  resolution  or  otherwise  as  to  the  truthfulness 
of  said  charges,  and  that  said  committee  have  power  to  examine  witnessess 
and  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  that  they  report  the  result  of  their  in- 
vestigation as  early  as  possible. 

Resolved  further,  That  said  committee  be  instructed  to  have  served  upon 
Judge  Theo.  Botkin  a copy  of  said  complaint,  and  that  they  notify  him  of 
the  time  and  place  of  said  investigation. 

This  resolution  was  a concurrent  resolution,  and  looked  to  the  removal  of 
Judge  Botkin  by  the  summary  proceeding  authorized  by  section  15  of  the 
judiciary  article  of  our  State  constitution,  which  reads  as  follows: 

“Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  judges  of  the  district  courts  may  be 
removed  from  office  by  resolution  of  both  houses,  if  two  thirds  of  the  mem- 
bers of  each  house  concur;  but  no  such  removal  shall  be  made  except  upon 
complaint,  the  substance  of  which  shall  be  entered  upon  the  journal,  nor  until 
the  party  charged  shall  have  had  notice  and  opportunity  to.be  heard.” 

The  complaint  against  Judge  Botkin  had  been  duly  made  under  oath.  It 
had  been  entered  at  length  upon  the  journal  of  the  House.  Mr.  Doolittle’s 
resolution  provided  that  Judge  Botkin  be  notified  of  the  complaint,  and  of 
the  time  and  place  when  and  where  he  would  have  opportunity  to  be  heard. 
Why  was  not  this  simple  remedy  pursued?  Why  was  not  Mr.  Doolittle’s  reso- 


200 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


lntion  as  copied  above  adopted?  The  answer  will  be  found  in  the  unwritten 
history  of  that  day.  The  official  journals  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Legisla- 
ture do  not  furnish  the  reason.  But  within  an  hour  from  the  time  Mr.  Doo- 
little’s resolution  was  introduced  and  read,  the  House  lobby  was  filled  with 
Senators  and  their  allies,  suggesting  most  impressively,  and  with  a show  of 
great  interest,  that  “Mr.  Doolittle’s  resolution  wouldn't  do;  that  the  Senate 
could  not  take  any  action  on  that  resolution,  because  the  Senate  would  have 
to  sit  as  a court  of  impeachment  to  try  Judge  Botkin,  and,  like  a jury,  the  Sen- 
ate must  be  impartial.”  That  this  was  the  position  then  taken,  is  admitted 
by  Mr.  Hackney,  the  principal  attorney  for  Judge  Botkin,  im  his  argument 
before  the  Senate  during  the  trial.  Mr.  Hackney  (Impeachment  Trial,  page 
1289),  in  arraigning  the  People’s  Party  in  the  House,  said: 

“And  before  such  a House  as  this,  controlled  by  Sam.  Wood  and  Elder,  reek- 
ing with  the  infamy  piled  up  by  their  conduct,  these  men  came  and  presented 
their  charges  against  Judge  Botkin.  ...  It  was  found  that  a resolution 
removing  Judge  Botkin  would  not  do  — it  was  not  legal.  Then  a committee  was 
appointed,”  etc. 

Half  a dozen  or  more  Senators,  and  several  employes  of  the  Senate,  and 
some  outsiders  even,  were  conspicuously  officious  in  informing  members  of 
the  House,  within  two  hours  after  the  Doolittle  resolution  was  first  read,  that 
“that  resolution  would  not  do.”  Why  was  this  kind  of  talk  urged  upon  the 
House?  Because,  in  addition  to  the  removal  by  concurrent  resolution  already 
mentioned,  and  which  was  contemplated  by  the  Doolittle  resolution,  removal 
by  impeachment  and  trial  is  also  provided  for.  Sections  27  and  28,  of  the 
legislative  article  of  the  State  constitution,  are  as  follows: 

“Sec.  27.  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  im- 
peach. All  impeachments  shall  be  tried  by  the  Senate,  and  when  sitting  for 
that  purpose,  the  Senators  shall  take  an  oath  to  do  justice  according  to  the 
law  and  the  evidence.  No  person  shall  be  convicted  without  the  concurrence 
of  two- thirds  of  the  Senators  elected. 

“Sec.  28.  The  Governor  and  all  other  officers  under  this  constitution  shall 
be  subject  to  impeachment  for  any  misdemeanor  in  office;  but  judgment  in 
all  such  cases  shall  not  be  extended  further  than  to  removal  from  office,  and 
disqualification  to  hold  any  office  of  profit,  honor  or  trust  under  this  consti- 
tution; but  the  party,  whether  acquitted  or  convicted,  shall  be  liable  to  indict- 
ment, trial,  judgment,  and  punishment  according  to  law.” 

It  is  true  that  when  the  House  proceeds  by  impeachment,  under  these  pro- 
visions, the  Senate  is  not  called  upon  to  act  until  the  House,  as  such,  adopts 
articles  of  impeachment  and  sends  them  to  the  Senate  to  try;  and  in  such 
case  it  is  eminently  proper  that  Senators  should  withhold  any  opinions 
until  they  have  heard  the  case.  But  there  is  no  greater  reason  for  proceed- 
ing by  impeachment  against  the  judges  of  our  courts  than  by  resolution.  The 
remedies  are  equally  open,  and  equally  adequate.  Sometimes,  as  in  Botkin’s 
case,  it  would  be  the  speedier,  and  therefore  the  better  and  cheaper  remedy 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


201 


to  proceed  by  concurrent  resolution.  So  thought  Mr.  Doolittle.  But  when  a 
lot  of  pigmy  statesmen,  who, had  already  assumed  a superiority  which  they 
never  possessed,  either  in  virtue  of  their  higher  office,  or  as  representatives 
of  the  people,  on  of  native  ability,  and  who,  finding  themselves  already  con- 
demned by  the  people,  and  likely  to  be  very  soon  retired  to  private  life,  saw 
an  opportunity  to  sit  and  exhibit  themselves  two  or  three  months  longer  as  a 
“High  Court  of  Impeachment,”  they  made  rapid  haste  to  inform  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House  of  Representatives  that  “the  Doolittle  resolution  was 
wrong,”  and  would  “embarrass  the  Senate  as  a court  of  impeachment,”  if  it 
should  pass.  Members  of  the  House  consulted,  and  very  soon  took  in  the  sit- 
uation. They  saw  that  if  a “concurrent  resolution”  was  sent  to  the  Senate, 
that  that  body  would  promptly  mount  its  highest  stilts  and  refuse  to  take  ac- 
tion, alleging  that  it  “would  not  comport  with  its  dignity  as  a court  of  im- 
peachment,” either  to  adopt  or  reject  the  resolution.  But  the  House  believed 
that  some  definite  action  was  necessary;  so,  on  the  7th  of  February  (House 
Jour,  page  343,  and  Impeachment  Trial,  page  15),  Mr.  Doolittle  called  up 
House  concurrent  resolution  No.  24,  and  moved  to  amend  the  same  so  as  to 
make  it  a House  resolution,  instead  of  concurrent  resolution,  and  so  as  to  read 
as  follows: 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  That  a special  committee  of 
five,  on  the  part  of  the  House,  be  appointed  to  investigate  the  charges  pre- 
ferred by  J.  F.  Van  Yoorhis  and  others  against  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  of 
the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  and  report,  by  resolution  or  otherwise,  as 
to  the  truthfulness  of  said  charges;  that  said  committee  have  the  power  to 
examine  witnesses,  and  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  that  they  report  the 
result  of  their  investigation  as  early  as  possible. 

Resolved  further,  That  said  committee  be  instructed  to  have  served  upon 
Judge  Theo.  Botkin  a copy  of  said  complaint,  and  that  they  notify  him  of  the 
time  and  place  of  said  investigation. 

The  amendments  were  agreed  to,  and  the  resolution  was  then  adopted;  and 
subsequently  the  Speaker  appointed  the  committee  provided  for.  Some 
changes  in  the  committee  were  made  — two  members  originally  appointed  de- 
clining to  serve.  The  committee,  as  finally  appointed,  were  Representatives 
A.  N.  Whittington,  of  Lincoln;  Francis  M.  Stahl,  of  Shawnee;  J.  B.  Coons,  of 
Miami;  W.  H.  Mitchell,  of  Reno,  and  Geo.  H.  Coulson,  of  Harper. 

Repobt  of  Special  Committee. — On  the  27th  of  February  the  special  com- 
mittee appointed  to  investigate  charges  against  Judge  Botkin  reported  as 
follows  — House  Journal,  page  728;  Impeachment  Trial,  page  16: 

To  the  House  of  Representatives:  The  special  committee  appointed  under 
and  by  virtue  of  House  resolution,  adopted  February  7,  1891,  to  investigate 
the  charges  preferred  by  J.  F.  Van  Yoorhis,  H.  F.  Thompson,  C.  L.  Calvert,  S. 
A.  Klein,  and  W.  A.  Ralstin,  against  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  of  the  Thirty- 
second  Judicial  District,  respectfully  herewith  submit  their  report. 

Your  committee  notified  Judge  Botkin  of  the  time  and  place  of  said  investi-. 


202 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


gation,  and  appointed  R.  A.  Henderson  their  stenographer,  and  on  Tuesday, 
February  17th,  proceeded  to  examine  the  witnesses  and  reduce  to  writing  the 
testimony  taken,  which  accompanies  this  report.  Twenty-five  witnesses  were 
examined  on  behalf  of  the  complainants.  The  committee  also  attach  to  the 
testimony  an  affidavit  made  by  S.  N.  Wheeler,  of  Grand  Junction,  Colorado, 
formerly  a resident  of  Johnson  City,  in  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District; 
also,  the  affidavits  of  Frank  Hall,  A.  R.  Knapp  and  Fred.  Friar,  of  Leoti, 
Wichita  county. 

Respondent  furnished  the  committee  with  a list  of  304  witnesses,  which  he 
asked  to  have  subpenaed  at  the  expense  of  the  State,  at  a cost  of  twenty-five 
to  thirty  thousand  dollars.  No  statement  was  made  to  the  committee  as  to 
what  the  respondent  desired  to  establish  by  these  witnesses.  Inasmuch  as 
only  twenty  five  witnesses  had  been  examined  on  behalf  of  the  complainants, 
the  committee  determined  to  permit  the  respondent  to  have  subpenaed,  at 
the  expense  of  the  State,  thirty  witnesses  (being  a greater  number  than  that 
allowed  the  complainants),  and  Judge  Botkin  and  his  attorneys  were  so  in- 
formed by  the  committee;  but  they  refused  to  have  any  of  the  witnesses  sub- 
penaed unless  they  could  get  all  they  asked  for.  No  evidence  was  introduced 
on  behalf  of  Judge  Botkin.  The  witnesses  examined  on  behalf  of  complain- 
ants were  lawyers,  merchants  and  professional  persons,  and  city  and  county 
officials,  from  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  and  impressed  the  com- 
mittee with  the  truthfulness  of  their  testimony. 

From  the  evidence  taken,  the  committee  unanimously  find  that  the  charges 
made  by  the  complainants  against  judge  Botkin  are  true.  Judge  Botkin  was 
appointed  judge  of  the  Thirty- second  Judicial  District  in  the  spring  of  1889, 
and  at  the  general  election  in  the  fall  of  that  year  was  elected  for  the  term  of 
four  years,  commencing  on  the  second  Monday  in  January,  1890.  The  evi- 
dence shows  clearly  and  beyond  a doubt,  that  Judge  Botkin  is  an  habitual 
user  of  intoxicating  liquors  to  an  excess;  that  ever  since  his  election,  up  to 
and  including  last  month,  he  was  repeatedly  intoxicated  throughout  his  dis- 
trict, during  the  terms  of  court,  and  in  several  instances  was  so  far  overcome 
by  this  vile  habit  as  to  have  been  intoxicated  while  on  the  bench;  that  he  has 
been  guilty  of  oppressive  and  malicious  abuse  of  his  judicial  authority,  arbi- 
trarily imprisoning  persons  throughout  the  district  without  any  shadow  of 
law  or  authority;  that  he  has  been  guilty  of  willful  and  malicious  partiality, 
corruption,  misconduct  and  abuse  of  authority,  in  his  official  capacity,  and 
under  color  of  his  office. 

Your  committee  deem  it  but  due  to  the  people  of  the  Thirty-second  Judicial 
District,  and  the  good  name  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  that  this  House  should 
take  the  necessary  and  proper  steps  to  remove  him  from  office,  that  the  judi- 
cial ermine  may  be  maintained  unsullied  in  its  pristine  purity. 

So  believing,  your  committee  have,  after  a calm,  careful  and  considerate 
review  of  ttm  testimony,  unanimously  agreed  to  recommend  to  this  House 
the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  Theodosias  Botkin,  judge  of  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  be  im- 
peached of  high  misdemeanors  in  office. 

Your  committee  also  beg  leave  to  submit  the  accompanying  articles  of  im- 
peachment, and  recommend  their  adoption.  A.  N.  Whittington, 

Fkancis  M.  Stahl, 

J.  B.  Coons, 

W.  H.  Mitchell, 

Geo.  H.  Coulson,  * 

Committee 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


203 


Abtioles  of  Impeachment.— The  articles  of  impeachment  reported  by  the 
special  committee  are  very  long.  They  will  be  found  in  the  House  Journal, 
pages  730  to  740,  and  in  the  Impeachment  Trial,  pages  18  to  28,  and  again  on 
pages  31  to  42.  The  resolution  reported  by  the  committee  — “that  Theodo- 
sius Botkin,  judge  of  the  Thirty-second  Judical  District,  be  impeached  of  high 
misdemeanors  in  office  ” — and  the  articles  of  impeachment  were  adopted,  none 
voting  in  the  negative.  (House  Jour.  p.  740;  Impeachment  Trial,  p.  28.)  A 
Board  of  Managers  was  also  authorized  by  the  House,  and  appointed  by  the 
Speaker.  ( House  Jour.  pp.  740  and  746;  Impeachment  Trial,  p.  29.)  The  board 
thus  appointed  consisted  of  Representatives  Whittington,  of  Lincoln,  Mitchell, 
of  Reno,  Coulson,  of  Harper,  Webb,  of  Shawnee,  and  Coons,  of  Miami. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  the  articles  of  impeachment  be  set  forth  here  in 
full.  What  the  specific  charges  in  fact  were,  will  plainly  appear  in  the  follow- 
ing pages.  There  were  ten  separate  articles,  with  numerous  specifications. 

In  the  Senate. — The  articles  of  impeachment  were  duly  presented  to  the 
Senate  on  the  3d  of  March,  1891.  (Impeachment  Trial,  pp.  31  to  42;  Senate 
Jour.  pp.  594  to  605.)  Thereupon  the  Senate  organized  as  a court  of  im- 
peachment, adopted  rules  of  procedure,  and  adjourned  until  April  20th,  hav- 
ing first  fixed  that  day  for  the  commencement  of  the  trial.  (Impeachment 
Trial,  pp.  45  to  53.) 

On  the  20th  of  April  the  Senate  met  as  a court  of  impeachment.  Of  the  39 
Senators  remaining,  (Senator  Wilson  having  resigned  since  the  adjournment 
in  March,)  31  were  present.  The  eight  absentees  were  Senators  Buchan,  Car- 
roll  of  Leavenworth,  Carroll  of  Miami,  Howard,  Kirkpatrick,  Martin,  Norton, 
and  Woodward. 

Attorney  General  Ives,  the  Board  of  Managers  appointed  by  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  Messrs.  Geo.  L.  Douglass,  of  Wichita,  and  A.  M.  Mackey, 
of  Topeka,  were  present,  representing  the  State.  Judge  Botkin,  the  respond- 
ent, and  his  counsel,  Messrs.  S.  B.  Bradford,  of  Topeka,  Thomas  S.  Haun,  of 
Pittsburg,  Lewis  Hanback,  of  Osborn,  John  H.  Pitzer,  of  Arkalon,  and  Wm.  E. 
Hutchison,  of  Ulysses,  were  also  present. 

If  any  act  or  proceeding  on  the  part  of  the  Board  of  Managers  be  material 
from  any  political  standpoint,  it  may  be  stated  here,  that  the  two  attorneys 
(Messrs.  Douglass  and  Mackey)  employed  by  the  board  to  assist  the  Attorney 
General  were  Republicans;  and  it  is  also  a significant  fact,  that  the  only  law- 
yer on  the  Board  of  Managers  was  Judge  Webb,  a Republican,  and  that  to  him 
was  committed  the  management  of  the  case  so  far  as  its  legal  features  were 
under  the  control  of  the  board. 

Respecting  counsel  for  Judge  Botkin,  a most  novel  feature  appears  in  the 
record  of  his  trial.  The  preliminary  proceedings  show  that  Judge  Botkin 
was  duly  notified  by  the  House  of  the  memorials  or  petitions  presented  against 


204 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


him,  and  of  the  appointment  of  a committee.  The  House  Journal  and  the 
report  of  the  committee  (already  set  forth  in  full  on  preceding  pages  of  this 
review),  show  that  Judge  Botkin  appeared  before  the  House  committee  in 
person  and  by  attorneys.  We  quote  from  that  report  as  follows: 

“Respondent  furnished  the  committee  with  a list  of  304  witnesses,  which 
he  asked  to  have  subpenaed  at  the  expense  of  the  State,  at  a cost  of  twenty- 
five  to  thirty  thousand  dollars.  No  statement  was  made  to  the  committee  as 
to  what  the  respondent  desired  to  establish  by  these  witnesses.  Inasmuch  as 
only  25  witnesses  had  been  examined  on  behalf  of  the  complainants,  the  com- 
mittee determined  to  permit  the  respondent  to  have  subpenaed,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  State,  30  witnesses,  and  Judge  Botkin  and  his  attorneys  were  so 
informed  by  the  committee;  but  they  refused  to  have  any  of  the  witnesses 
subpenaed  unless  they  could  get  all  they  asked  for.” 

The  record  of  the  trial,  at  page  56,  shows  that  Judge  Botkin  appeared  and 
announced  to  the  Senate,  on  the  20th  of  April,  that  he  was  there  represented 
by  counsel,  namely,  Messrs.  Bradford,  Haun,  Hanback,  Pitzer,  and  Hutchison. 
These  were  the  same  five  attorneys  who  represented  him  before  the  House 
committee.  Yet,  on  the  21st  of  April  — the  day  after  he  had  appeared  and 
filed  a demurrer  to  the  articles  of  impeachment  (which  demurrer  is  signed  by 
his  five  attorneys) — Judge  Botkin  presented  to  the  court  a remarkable  doc- 
ument. (Impeachment  Trial,  pp.  64-67.)  This  document  consists  mainly  in 
an  arraignment  of  the  House  and  the  House  committee  for  alleged  unfair- 
ness, and  is  a most  lugubrious  presentation  of  his  own  pecuniary  embarrass- 
ments. He  admits  that  he  employed  attorneys  to  appear  for  him  before  the 
House  committee,  and  that  he  had  opportunity  to  bring  30  witnesses  before 
that  committee  in  his  defense.  He  closes  with  the  following  appeal: 

“Your  respondent  would  represent,  . . . that  he  is  absolutely  unable 

to  employ  counsel,  and  to  pay  his  own  personal  expenses  and  make  his  de- 
fense before  this  honorable  high  court  of  impeachment.  He  therefore  asks 
that  this  honorable  high  court  of  impeachment  make  to  him  an  allowance  for 
his  personal  expenses  during  this  trial,  and  appoint  attorneys  to  conduct  his  de- 
fense, and  to  defray  such  necessary  expenses  as  in  the  judgement  of  this  hon- 
orable high  court  may  seem  just  and  proper.” 

Practically  nothing  was  done  that  day  except  to  discuss  this  peculiar  docu- 
ment submitted  by  Judge  Botkin.  The  debate  was  exclusively  “senatorial,” 
none  of  the  counsel  on  either  side  having  a word  to  say.  The  next  day  (Im- 
peachment Trial,  page  72)  Senator  Gillett  introduced  the  following  preamble 
and  resolution,  which  were  adopted: 

“Whereas,  It  has  been  shown  by  the  respondent,  the  Hon.  Theodosius  Bot- 
kin, that  he  is  without  funds  for  the  employment  of  counsel,  and  desires  to 
appear  before  the  Senate  as  a court  of  impeachment  represented  by  counsel: 
therefore,  be  it 

“ Resolved , That  Hon.  S.  B.  Bradford,  Hon.  Lewis  Hanback,  T.  S.  Haun,  J.  H. 
Pitzer  and  W.  E.  Hutchison  be  and  they  are  hereby  assigned  and  appointed  by 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


205 


the  Senate  as  such  court,  as  counsel  for  the  respondent,  to  appear  and  defend 
for  him.” 

Judge  Botkin  had  already  appeared  by  counsel;  he  had  already  employed 
counsel.  The  Senate  had  no  right,  power  or  authority  to  appoint  any  counsel 
for  anyone.  It  did  not  and  could  not  bind  the  State  to  pay  for  counsel  em- 
ployed by  the  respondent.  But  this  singular  proceeding  suggests  two  things 
worth  remembering:  the  ready  sympathy  and  prompt  assistance  of  this  Re- 
publican Senate  to  a fellow-Republican,  and  a purpose  to  give  the  semblance 
of  authority  to  enormous  claims  which  those  same  attorneys  will  surely  pre- 
sent to  the  next  Legislature  for  payment.  Let  the  people  beware  who  they 
send  to  Topeka  to  open  the  doors  of  the  treasury  for  any  such  purpose. 

A Quobum. — Perhaps  the  question,  what  constitutes  a quorum  of  the  Sen- 
ate when  sitting  as  a court  of  impeachment,  may  not  be  very  material  for  the 
purpose  of  this  review  of  the  impeachment  trial.  But  it  may  be  properly 
stated  as  throwing  some  light  upon  the  conduct  of  the  Senate  as  a body,  and 
of  individual  Senators,  that  notwithstanding  their  over  anxiety  in  February 
to  sit  as  a “high  court,”  yet  when  it  came  to  the  discharge  of  that  duty  many 
of  them  seemed  to  care  very  little  about  the  law  governing  the  organization 
of  the  Senate,  or  the  merits  of  the  case.  Respecting  a quorum,  there  was  a 
diversity  of  opinion.  For  legislative  purposes,  the  State  constitution  (sec.  8, 
art.  2)  fixes  a “quorum”  as  being  “a  majority”  of  all  the  members  elect  — 
that  is,  as  the  Senate  is  now  constituted,  not  less  than  21  members.  For  the 
purpose  of  removing  any  judge  or  State  officer  by  trial  and  conviction,  (on 
impeachment  by  the  House,)  there  must  be  a “concurrence  of  two-thirds  of 
the  Senators  elected.”  (Const.,  art.  2,  sec.  27.)  So,  with  a Senate  of  40  mem- 
bers, it  requires  at  least  27  to  convict;  and  less  than  that  number  of  Senators 
cannot  constitute  a quorum  when  sitting  as  a court  of  impeachment. 

This  view  of  the  case  was  early  presented  to  the  Senate.  Judge  Botkin  hav- 
ing demurred  to  the  articles  of  impeachment,  the  question  of  a quorum  be- 
came at  once  a most  important  matter.  On  the  22d  of  April  (page  73, 
Impeachment  Trial),  the  question  was  raised  by  Attorney  General  Ives.  We 
quote: 

The  Attokney  General : Preliminary  to  proceeding  with  the  argument  of 
this  demurrer,  I wish,  as  the  representative  of  the  State,  to  say,  that  it  occurs 
to  me  that  it  would  be  better  to  settle  the  question  of  how  many  members  of 
this  Senate  shall  compose  the  court.  It  is  important  at  this  time,  because,  as 
I regard  this  demurrer,  all  the  questions  involved  in  this  case  may  be  settled 
upon  this  demurrer.  . . . And  I do  not  feel,  as  a representative  of  the 

State,  that  it  is  proper  for  us  to  proceed  with  even  a hearing  of  the  argument 
upon  this  demurrer,  until  a call  of  the  Senate  is  made,  and  absentees  brought 
in,  unless  they  have  been  excused.  The  matter  stands  before  this  court  now 
exactly  as  it  would  stand  upon  a plea  of  guilty.  The  demurrer  confesses 
every  charge  made  in  the  articles  of  impeachment.  . . . Supposing,  Mr. 


206 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


President,  that  after  the  argument  of  this  demurrer  a vote  was  taken,  and  the 
demurrer  not  sustained,  and  that  the  respondent  refused  to  plead  over,  but 
stood  upon  the  demurrer:  unless  there  was  a vote  of  twenty-seven  members 
of  this  court  refusing  to  sustain  that  demurrer,  how  could  judgment  of  any 
kind  be  entered  upon  the  proceedings?  Where  would  be  the  necessity  for  in- 
troducing any  evidence,  and  of  putting  this  State  to  the  expense  of  attempt- 
ing to  prove  the  charges  that  stand  confessed  by  this  demurrer?  . . . 

Senatob  Fobney:  I understand  that  Senator  Osborn  introduced  a resolu- 
tion to  decide  that  question,  and  I think  with  the  Attorney  General,  that  it 
ought  to  be  decided  at  this  time.  ...  I move  you,  Mr.  President,  that  we 
take  up  this  resolution  at  this  time. 

Senator  Forney’s  motion  was  lost  — yeas  13,  nays  16;  absent,  10.  At  a later 
day  (April  30),  upon  a roll-call,  it  appeared  that  only  25  Senators  were  pres- 
ent, of  whom  only  21  had  voted.  (Impeachment  Trial,  pp.  88  and  89.)  The 
following  is  shown: 

The  Attobney  Genebal:  Mr.  President,  I must  protest  against  the  quo- 
rum present.  Only  25  Senators  are  present.  It  is  a very  grave  question 
with  me  whether  the  State  will  be  justified  in  going  on,  and  entailing  the  ex- 
pense of  taking  testimony,  with  a less  number  of  Senators  in  this  court  than 
would  be  necessary  to  convict,  if  there  was  a unanimous  vote.  ...  I sub- 
mit, that  in  fairness  to  the  State,  and  to  the  people  of  the  State  who  have  the 
bills  to  pay,  that  this  question  of  a quorum  is  a serious  one.  I submit  that 
it  would  not  be  fair  to  the  State  to  proceed  with  less  than  a constitutional 
majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present;  . . . and  the  State  has  a 

right  to  at  least  have  a proper  number  of  the  members  of  the  court  present 
that  could  pass  judgment  in  favor  of  the  State  during  all  of  these  proceed- 
ings. 

After  some  little  discussion,  the  Senate  adjourned.  But  the  question  came 
up  again.  On  Saturday,  the  2d  of  May,  there  were  at  roll-call  only  18  Senators 
present.  (During  the  session  six  more  came  in,  and  the  journal  shows  24 
present.)  Senator  Gillett  offered  a new  rule,  to  stand  as  rule  17,  as  follows: 

“Rule  17.  It  shall  require  the  presence  of  twenty-seven  Senators  at  every 
sitting  for  the  court  to  constitute  a quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business, 
and  no  Senator  shall  be  permitted  to  be  absent  from  the  sessions  of  the  court 
without  leave,  which  must  be  granted  by  the  court.  Absence  of  a Senator 
from  the  sessions  of  the  court  without  leave  shall  be  deemed  a contempt  of 
court,  and  may  be  punished  by  such  fine  as  the  court  may  impose.”  . . . 

After  this  rule  was  read,  a motion  was  made  to  adjourn  until  Monday. 

Me.  Manageb  Webb:  I do  not  rise  to  discuss  this  motion.  It  is  not  within 
my  province,  nor  of  the  Board  of  Managers  to  do  so;  but  I wish  to  say  this 
in  the  absence  of  the  Attorney  General,  that  he  has  very  frequently  expressed 
his  opinions  to  the  Board  of  Managers,  and  sometimes  here,  that  it  is  his  de- 
sire (and  I speak  for  the  board,  that  it  is  its  desire  also)  that  the  Senate,  dur- 
ing the  hearing  of  the  proceedings  in  this  trial,  shall  have  a constitutional  quo- 
rum, which  would  enable  it  to  make  final  judgment  satisfactory  to  itself  and 
to  the  State. 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


207 


The  Senate  adjourned  until  Monday,  when  Senator  Gillett’s  new  rule  17  was 
taken  up.  On  motion  to  adopt  the  rule,  the  following  occurred: 

Senator  Schilling:  I am  opposed  to  the  rule  on  general  principles;  that 
is  all  I have  to  say. 

Senator  Kimball:  I cannot  see  what  right  this  Senate  has  to  adopt  a rule 
which  is  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution.  The  constitution 
says  that  a majority  of  the  members-elect  of  this  Senate  shall  constitute  a 
quorum;  and  this  rule  provides  that  it  shall  take  twenty-seven.  Now  I know 
there  is  a difference  of  opinion  upon  this  subject,  and  I have  already  said  in 
this  Senate  what  I desire  to  say,  or  all  that  I could  say,  in  discussing  this 
question;  and  I therefore  do  not  intend  to  take  up  the  time  of  the  Senate  in 
repeating  it.  . . . 

. Senator  Gillett:  I have  canvassed  the  reasons  given  by  the  Senator  from 
Labette,  and  I had  convinced  myself  of  their  correctness,  and  discharged  the 
matter  from  my  mind.  Upon  a review  of  the  subject,  when  it  was  brought 
up  for  discussion,  it  was  urged  by  lawyers  in  whom  I have  a great  deal  of 
confidence,  that  where  the  constitution  provides  for  a certain  number  neces- 
sary to  convict  upon  an  information,  that  it  impliedly  presumes  that  such 
a number  would  listen  to  the  evidence  in  the  case,  for  the  purpose  of  settling 
in  their  minds  as  to  whether  or  not  they  ought  to  convict.  I find  these  rea- 
sons presented,  not  only  by  strong  lawyers,  but  others  occupying  positions 
upon  the  bench.  . . . 

Senator  Elliston:  Mr.  President,  I look  upon  this  matter  as  of  vital  im- 
portance. I have  listened  attentively,  with  a desire  to  be  convinced,  to  the 
Senator  from  Labette,  and  given  the  weight  they  deserve  to  the  reasons  which 
he  urged  in  support  of  his  position;  but  the  more  I consider  it,  the  more 
thoroughly  I am  persuaded  that  they  are  fallacious.  He  insists  that  twenty- 
one  is  a quorum  for  this  proceeding,  because  twenty-one  would  be  a quorum 
for  the  transaction  of  ordinary  legislative  business;  but  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  reasons  at  the  foundation  are  entirely  different.  . . . There  is  no 

material  matter  that  we  can  dispose  of  except  by  the  vote  of  twenty-seven 
members,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  a court  of  less  than  twenty- seven  members 
is  not  a court  for  the  transaction  of  this  business. 

Senator  Long:  I shall  vote  against  this  resolution.  ...  I am  in  full 
accord  with  the  ideas  expressed  by  the  Senator  from  Labette,  because  I believe 
they  are  warranted  by  the  constitution,  which  provides  that  the  Senate  shall 
not  consist  of  more  than  forty  members,  Another  provision  provides  that  a 
majority  of  the  members  elected  shall  constitute  a quorum.  It  is  simply  a 
mathematical  calculation;  and  ought  this  record  to  show  that  twenty-one 
members  do  not  constitute  a quorum?  . . . 

Senator  Forney:  It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  President,  no  more  reasonable  rule 
has  been  proposed  for  the  government  of  this  court  than  the  one  now  under 
consideration.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  a strange  condition  of  affairs 
when  a Senator  is  sworn  to  discharge  the  duties  of  his  office  as  Senator,  if 
there  were  no  means  by  which  his  attendance  could  be  compelled,  when  the 
^ people  call  upon  him  to  sit  in  a court  of  impeachment.  It  seems  also  to  me 
to  be  necessary  that  twenty-seven  members  should  hear  this  testimony.  That 
is  my  understanding  of  the  constitution.  . . . 

Senator  Murdock:  It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  some  logic  as  well  as  law 


208 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


in  this  suggestion:  this  is  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  twenty-one 
is  a quorum  of  this  body. 

Senatoe  Kimball:  I move  to  strike  out  “twenty-seven”  and  insert  “twenty- 
one.” 

Senatob  Kelly  of  McPherson:  I believe  the  constitution  requires,  upon 
the  final  vote,  there  be  twenty-seven  votes,  or  two-thirds  of  the  members  elected 
voting,  for  a conviction.  That  being  the  case,  I do  not  see  the  logic  of  the 
proposition  to  require  twenty-one  or  twenty-seven,  or  any  other  number  less 
than  the  Senators  holding  their  places  to-day  as  the  Senate  of  Kansas.  . . . 

Senatob  Osboen:  I move  to  refer  the  resolution  to  the  Committee  on  Ju- 
diciary, with  instructions  to  report  a rule  providing  for  absentee  Senators, 
and  leave  out  all  reference  to  the  subject  of  a quorum. 

Senatob  Schilling:  I arise  to  a point  of  order.  There  is  no  Judiciary 
Committee  present  to  whom  to  refer  that  resolution. 

The  Pbesident:  The  members  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  have  not  lost 
their  existence  or  power. 

Senator  Osborn’s  motion  was  finally  amended  so  as  to  read,  that  rule  17 
prepared  by  Senator  Gillett  be  referred  “to  the  Committee  on  Judiciary, 
with  instructions  to  report  a rule  providing  for  the  attendance  of  absentee 
Senators,  the  committee  to  report  to-morrow  morning,”  and  as  so  amended 
it  was  adopted;  yeas  16;  nays  10. 

The  Attoeney  Geneeal:  The  roll-call  shows  that  there  are  but  26  Senators 
present,  and  if  the  Senate  insists  that  we  must  go  on,  I want  it  on  the  record 
that  we  go  on  under  the  protest  of  the  State,  until  there  is  a sufficient  num- 
ber at  least  to  act  upon  this  matter,  provided  it  was  submitted  to  them  for 
final  vote  at  the  present  time.  . . . The  State  is  paying  the  expenses  of 

this  entertainment  at  present,  and  it  is  entitled  to  the  service  of  the  Senators, 
or  members  of  this  Senate  who  have  taken  their  oaths  to  sit  as  members  of 
this  court. 

These  remarks  of  the  Attorney  General  gave  rise  to  one  of  several  exhibi- 
tions of  senatorial  smartness,  which  will  be  found  in  the  record.  We  quote: 

Senatob  Bentley:  I would  like  to  propound  one  question  to  the  Attorney 
General,  if  he  will  permit  me.  Is  the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Managers 
present? 

To  this  very  little  and  contemptible  objection  interposed  by  Senator  Bent- 
ley, the  Attorney  General  well  said  — that  “the  State  and  the  Board  of  Mana- 
gers are  ready  to  proceed;  that  this  is  a civil  action,  and  the  State  and  the 
Board  of  Managers  are  represented  by  counsel;  that  the  respondent  is 
also  represented  by  counsel,  and  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  respondent,  nor 
the  entire  Board  of  Managers,  should  be  present;  but  that  the  State  is  not 
ready  to  proceed  unless  there  is  such  a court  here  as  would  result  in  the  final 
determination  of  this  case  oneway  or  the  other.”  And  Senator  Kimball  real- 
ized the  exact  measure  of  Senator  Bentley’s  smartness,  and  he  supplemented 
the  Attorney  General’s  remarks: 

Senatob  Kimball:  I think  it  is  conceded  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  that  it 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


209 


is  not  necessary  that  there  should  be  any  member  of  the  Board  of  Managers 
present,  if  they  don’t  desire  to  be  here.  They  have  employed  counsel  to  rep- 
resent them,  and  that’s  all  that  is  necessary. 

Senator  Buchan:  I desire  to  offer  this  resolution: 

“ Resolved , That  twenty  one  Senators  shall  constitute  a quorum  for  all  the 
purposes  of  this  trial,  except  upon  the  final  vote.” 

Senator  Harkness  moved  that  this  resolution  be  referred  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  which  motion  was  adopted.  Now  what  is  here  compressed  in 
about  four  pages  occupies,  with  other  like  arguments,  seventeen  pages  of  the 
Impeachment  Trial— pages  483  to  499  inclusive  — and  consumed  one  whole 
day  and  part  of  another  day.  And  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Senate  refused  to 
settle  the  question  of  a “quorum”  at  all  — that  it  referred  two  propositions 
on  that  subject  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  At  page  527  that  committee  re- 
ported a substitute  for  Senator  Gillett’s  “ Rule  17,”  but  the  substitute  was  si- 
lent as  to  a “quorum.” 

One  good  result  came,  however,  from  the  persistent  efforts  of  the  Attorney 
General  to  secure  a “constitutional  quorum.”  During  the  last  twelve  days  of 
the  trial  28  or  more  Senators  appeared  and  answered,  except  on  one  day,  and 
on  the  last  day  there  were  35  present.  Senator  Martin  did  not  attend  at  all 
during  the  trial;  and  be  it  said  to  his  credit  that  he  neither  asked  nor  received 
any  pay.  Out  of  the  24  days  that  the  Senate  was  in  actual  session  as  a court, 
Senator  Buchan  was  absent  17  days,  yet  he  claimed  and  took  pay  for  23  days. 
Senator  Kirkpatrick  was  present  only  3 out  of  the  24  days  the  court  was  in 
actual  session,  yet  he  claimed  and  took  pay  for  19  days.  Senator  Johnson 
was  present  7 days,  but  he  neither  claimed  nor  received  pay  for  any  part  of 
the  time.  These  four  Senators,  Buchan,  Johnson,  Kirkpatrick,  and  Martin, 
were  not  present  and  did  not  vote  on  any  of  the  articles  of  impeachment. 

Demurrer  to  the  Articles. — Lawyers  tell  us  that  a “demurrer”  is  an  ad- 
mission of  all  the  facts  alleged  in  the  paper  or  document  demurred  to,  but  is 
a claim  nevertheless  that  such  admitted  facts  are  not  sufficient  in  law  to  war- 
rant a judgment  against  the  party  demurring.  Judge  Botkin  filed  a formal 
demurrer  to  the  articles  or  charges  adopted  by  the  House  of  Representatives. 
(Impeachment  Trial,  p.  57.)  It  will  be  proper  at  this  point  to  give  a brief 
abstract  of  the  articles  of  impeachment,  that  it  may  be  seen  what  facts  Judge 
Botkin  admits  by  his  demurrer: 

The  1st  article  charges,  that  Theodosius  Botkin,  while  occupying  the  offi- 
cial position  as  judge  of  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  unmindful  of 
the  high  duties  of  his  office  and  the  dignity  and  proprieties  thereof,  has 
been  repeatedly  intoxicated  in  public  places  throughout  said  judical  district, 
to  the  manifest  scandal  of  the  administration  of  justice,  by  means  whereof 
he  has  brought  his  high  office  as  judge  into  contempt,  ridicule,  and  disgrace, 
to  the  great  scandal  of  all  good  citizens,  whereby  said  Botkin  was  guilty  of 
high  misdemeanors  in  office;  and  said  article  specifies  dates  and  places  where 


210 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Judge  Botkin  was  drunk,  as  follows:  At  Springfield,  in  Seward  county,  in 
April,  July,  October,  and  November,  1890;  at  Santa  Fe,  in  Haskell  county,  in 
May,  July,  November,  and  December,  1890;  at  Ulysses,  in  Grant  county,  in 
April,  1890;  and  at  Richfield,  in  Morton  county,  in  February,  1890.|j 

Article  2d  charges,  that  Judge  Botkin,  while  engaged  in  holding  court 
throughout  his  said  district  as  required  by  law,  and  during  the  times  of  hold- 
ing the  same,  has  been  repeatedly  intoxicated  and  under  the  influence  of  in- 
toxicating liquors,  by  means  whereof  he  has  brought  his  high  office  as  judge 
as  aforesaid  into  contempt,  ridicule,  and  disgrace,  etc.,  whereby  the  said  Bot- 
kin, judge  as  aforesaid,  was  guilty  of  high  misdemeanors  in  office;  and  said 
article  specifies  the  terms  of  court  during  which  Judge  Botkin  was  drunk,  as 
follows:  In  Seward  county,  the  terms  held  in  January,  March,  and  September, 
1890,  and  the  term  held  in  January,  1891;  in  Haskell  county,  the  terms  held 
in  May  and  November,  1890;  in  Grant  county,  the  terms  held  in  April  and 
December,  1890;  and  in  Stanton  county  the  terms  held  in  May  and  December, 
1890. 

Article  3d  charges,  that  Judge  Botkin,  ‘‘while  engaged  in  holding  court,  and 
while  sitting  on  the  bench  as  judge,  has  been  repeatedly  intoxicated,  and  un- 
der the  influence  of  intoxicating  liquors,”  by  means  whereof  he  has  brought 
his  high  office  as  judge  into  contempt,  ridicule,  and  disgrace,  etc.,  whereby 
said  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  as  aforesaid,  was  guilty  of  high  misdemeanors 
in  office;  and  specifications  of  times  and  places  are  stated,  as  follows:  In 
Seward  county,  at  the  June  term,  1890;  in  Grant  county,  at  the  April  term, 
1890;  in  Haskell  county,  at  the  November  term,  1890;  and  in  Stanton  county 
at  the  May  term,  1890. 

Article  4th  charges,  that  said  Botkin,  while  j udge  of  the  Thirty-second  J udicial 
District,  on  the  29th  of  August,  1890,  on  the  streets  and  in  public  places  in  the 
city  of  Leoti,  in  Wichita  county,  was  drunk  and  under  the  influence  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors,  and  was  engaged  in  a drunken  and  boisterous  quarrel  on  said 
streets,  and  was  then  and  there  disorderly,  by  means  whereof  the  said  Botkin 
has  brought  his  high  office  as  judge  into  contempt  and  ridicule  and  disgrace, 
and  whereby  he  was  guilty  of  high  misdemeanors  in  office. 

The  5th  article  charges,  that  said  Botkin,  judge  as  aforesaid,  unmindful  of 
the  duties  of  his  office  and  the  dignity  and  proprieties  thereof,  and  notwith- 
standing his  duty  to  enforce  the  laws  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liq- 
uors in  this  State  except  for  medical,  scientific  and  mechanical  purposes,  has, 
during  his  said  term  of  office,  knowingly  and  willfully  frequented  places  within 
and  throughout  his  said  judicial  district  where  intoxicating  liquors  were  sold 
in  violation  of  law;  whereby  said  Botkin  was  guilty  of  high  misdemeanors  in  - 
office;  and  numerous  specifications  of  times  and  places  are  set  forth  under  this 
article. 

Article  6th  charges,  that  said  Botkin,  at  sundry  specified  times  and  places 
within  his  judicial  district,  and  during  his  said  term  of  office,  has  knowingly, 
willfully  and  illegally  bought  intoxicating  liquors  from  persons  selling  the 
same  in  violation  of  law,  and  has  thereby  knowingly  and  willfully  encouraged 
the  violation  of  law. 

Article  7th  charges,  that  said  Botkin  has,  since  and  during  his  said  term  of 
office,  been  an  habitual  user  of  intoxicating  liquors  to  such  an  excess  as  to  in- 
capacitate him  for  a clear-minded  discharge  of  his  said  judicial  functions,  by 
means  whereof  he  has  brought  his  high  office  as  judge  as  aforesaid  into 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


211 


contempt,  ridicule,  and  disgrace,  etc.,  and  whereby  the  said  Botkin,  judge  as 
aforesaid,  was  guilty  of  a high  misdemeanor  in  office. 

Article  8th  charges,  that  said  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  as  aforesaid,  unmind- 
ful of  the  duties  of  his  office,  and  the  dignity  and  proprieties  thereof,  did,  at 
the  city  of  Springfield,  in  his  said  district,  in  January,  1891,  while  in  a drug 
store  where  intoxicating  liquors  were  sold  in  violation  of  law,  curse  and  swear 
in  a blasphemous  manner,  and  say  in  the  presence  of  others  that  “God  Al- 
mighty was  a God-damned  fool,”  by  means  whereof  he  brought  his  high  office 
into  contempt,  and  ridicule,  and  disgrace,  to  the  great  scandal  of  all  good 
citizens,  and  whereby  the  said  Botkin,  judge  as  aforesaid,  was  guilty  of  a 
high  misdemeanor  in  office. 

The  9th  article  charges,  that  said  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  as  aforesaid, 
has  willfully,  maliciously,  oppressively,  partially  and  illegally  exercised  the 
functions  of  his  said  judicial  office  of  his  own  mere  will,  and  out  of  favor  or 
enmity,  to  the  oppression  of  suitors  and  others,  and  the  manifest  scandal  and 
danger  of  the  administration  of  justice,  and  to  the  great  scandal  of  all  good 
citizens,  whereby  he  was  guilty  of  high  misdemeanors  in  office. 

There  were  four  specifications  under  this  charge.  The  first  was  for  “ille- 
gally issuing  a fictitious  and  fraudulent”  for  the  arrest  of  some  party  for 
a “fictitious  offense,”  and  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  some  private  and 
unlawful  scheme;  but  no  evidence  was  offered  in  its  support  at  the  trial. 

The  second  specification  was,  that  at  the  December  term  of  the  Grant  dis- 
trict court,  Judge  Botkin  ordered  the  official  stenographer  of  his  court  to 
strike  from  the  record  an  “exception,”  which  had  been  taken  by  the  defend- 
ant in  a criminal  case  to  a ruling  made  by  the  court. 

The  third  specification  charged  Judge  Botkin  with  having  illegally  and  ma- 
liciously caused  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  J.  F.  Van  Voorhis  and  John 
R.  Garrison,  on  the  7th  of  January,  1891,  as  for  a.contempt  of  court,  upon  the 
false  charge  that  Garrison  and  Van  Yoorhis  were  “circulating  certain  scurri- 
lous papers  against  this  court  and  against  the  judge  of  this  court,  and  are  ac- 
cusing the  judge  of  this  court  of  being  incompetent,  and  of  being  a drunkard, 
and  of  being  a robber,  a thief,  a boodler,  and  an  aider  and  abettor  of  robbers 
and  thieves.” 

The  fourth  specification  charged  that  Judge  Botkin,  on  the  13th  of  January, 
1891,  caused  the  arrest  and  imprisonment,  on  the  charge  of  “contempt  of 
court,”  of  H.  F.  Thompson  and  C.  L.  Calvert,  upon  an  affidavit  made  by  his 
(Botkin’s)  direction,  and  which  affidavit  was  knowingly  false  and  untrue. 

The  10th  article  charged  that  “said  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  as  afore- 
said, has  willfully,  corruptly,  partially,  oppressively  and  illegally  exercised 
the  functions  of  his  judicial  office,  and  abused  his  authority  therein  of  his  own 
mere  will,  out  of  favor  or  enmity,  to  the  oppression  of  suitors  and  the  mani- 
fest scandal  and  great  danger  of  the  administration  of  justice,  and  to  the 
great  scandal  of  all  good  citizens,  whereby  the  said  Botkin  was  guilty  of  high 
misdemeanors  in  office;”  and  under  this  charge  it  is  specifically  alleged  that 
Judge  Botkin  knowingly  aided  in  the  robbery  of  the  city  of  Springfield, 
Seward  county.  The  series  of  illegal  and  oppressive  acts,  and  acts  of  usur- 
pation, alleged  in  said  10th  article,  are  not  separately  stated;  but  the  specific 
illegal  acts  and  acts  of  usurpation  charged  will  be  fully  stated  in  the  subse- 
quent pages,  when  reference  is  made  to  the  evidence. 


212 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Judge  Botkin’s  demurrer,  admitting  all  that  is  charged  against  him  in  the 
articles  and  specifications,  was  as  follows: 

Now  comes  Theodosius  Botkin,  the  respondent  herein,  and  reserving  the 
right  to  further  answer  thereto,  demurs  to  the  said  articles  of  impeachment , 
and  each  and  every  of  them,  on  the  following  grounds,  to  wit: 

First : That  the  facts  stated  in  said  articles  do  not  constitute  a misdemeanor 
in  office. 

Second:  That  the  said  articles,  and  each  and  every  of  them,  fail  to  charge 
this  respondent  with  a misdemeanor  in  office. 

Third:  That  in  and  by  said  articles,  and  each  and  every  of  them,  this  re- 
spondent is  not  charged  with  any  offense  or  matter  constituting  a misde- 
meanor in  office  for  which  he  can  be  held  to  answer  by  and  before  this  court. 

Fourth:  That  the  statements  and  charges  set  forth  in  the  said  articles  of 
impeachment,  and  each  and  every  of  them,  are  not  stated  with  sufficient  dis- 
tinctness and  certainty  to  enable  or  require  this  respondent  to  answer  the 
same. 

Wherefore,  this  respondent  prays  judgment,  and  that  he  may  be  discharged 
from  said  premises  in  said  articles  specified. 

Theodosius  Botkin,  Respondent. 

Here  is  the  explicit  admission  that  every  fact  alleged  and  stated  in  said  ar- 
ticles of  impeachment  is  true,  and  it  will  be  readily  seen  that  the  demand  by 
the  Attorney  General  and  Board  of  Managers,  that  there  should  be  a consti- 
tutional quorum  present  in  order  to  properly  determine  the  case,  was  in  the 
interest  of  law  and  of  substantial  justice.  Whether  the  unusual  practice  on 
the  part  of  the  Senate  of  entertaining  this  “demurrer”  was  or  was  not  a 
proper  proceeding,  need  not  be  considered  now.  The  Senate  did  entertain 
the  demurrer,  and  five  days  of  time  were  consumed  in  discussing  a’nd  consid- 
ering the  questions  of  law,  and  195  pages  of  the  record  are  filled  with  the  ar- 
guments submitted  by  the  attorneys  and  Senators.  (Impeachment  Trial, 
pages  71  to  265.)  It  may  be  profitable  to  briefly  mention  the  points  raised 
and  discussed. 

Mr.  Haun,  one  of  Judge  Botkin’s  attorneys,  made  the  first  argument  in  sup- 
port of  the  demurrer.  His  contentions  were,  first,  that  the  clause  in  section 
28  of  article  two  of  the  constitution,  (already  quoted  in  full,)  which  reads: 
“The  Governor  and  all  other  officers  under  this  constitution  shall  be  subject 
to  impeachment  for  any  misdemeanor  in  office ,”  meant  and  means,  that  the  of- 
fense charged  must  be  a “misdemeanor”  punishable  by  law,  and  must  have 
been  committed  in  the  discharge  or  pretended  discharge  of  official  duties; 
second,  that  proceedings  by  impeachment  and  trial  are  in  the  nature  of  crim- 
inal actions,  and  that,  tested  by  the  strict  rules  applicable  to  criminal  causes, 
the  articles  of  impeachment  were  indefinite  and  uncertain,  and  did  not  suffi- 
ciently charge  any  offense;  and  third,  that  as  the  removal  of  district  judges 
was  provided  for  by  section  15  of  the  judiciary  article,  (also  hereinbefore 
quoted  in  full,)  proceedings  by  “impeachment”  against  a district  judge  are 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


213 


not  authorized  in  any  case.  Mr.  Haun  made  an  elaborate  argument  is  sup- 
port of  their  position. 

Mr.  Haun  was  followed  by  Gen.  S.  B.  Bradford,  on  the  same  side.  Among 
other  propositions  submitted  by  him,  General  Bradford  said: 

“There  are  two  ways  provided  in  the  constitution  for  the  removal  of  a 
judge;  and  why  two?  I think  it  is  important  to  determine  for  ourselves  why 
there  are  two  modes  of  disposing  of  a judge  provided  for.  Now,  in  the  first 
place,  that  provision  of  the  constitution  to  which  your  attention  has  been 
called,  which  is  article  2,  section  28,  says,  ‘The  Governor  and  all  other  officers 
under  this  constitution  shall  be  subject  to  impeachment.’  The  makers  of  the 
constitution  evidently  had  in  mind  that  these  officers  of  the  State  should  be 
impeached  for  crimes  and  misdemeanors  committed  in  office , which  affect  the 
administration  of  justice,  and  which  had  an  effect  upon  the  official  acts  of  the 
individual  who  was  sought  to  be  impeached.  It  has  for  its  object  the  correc- 
tion of  evils  which  grow  out  of  mal  administration  — of  crimes  committed  in 
the  discharge  of  an  official  duty.  . . . We  must  conclude  that  the  impeach- 

ment must  be  for  a crime  committed , which  is  a crime  under  the  criminal 
statutes  of  the  State.  He  cannot  be  impeached  for  simply  overt  acts  as  an  in- 
dividual. He  cannot  be  impeached  for  misconduct  as  an  individual  upon  the 
common  streets  of  a city  or  town,  or  in  any  place  in  the  State  of  Kansas.” 

General  Bradford  also  argued,  as  did  Mr.  Haun,  that  an  impeachable  misde- 
meanor was  a “crime”  punishable  under  the  laws  of  the  State,  and  he  also 
contended  that  in  the  articles  (or  several  of  them)  “ there  is  a vagueness  and 
indefiniteness  that  does  not  apprise  the  accused  of  what  he  is  charged,  by 
what  witnesses  he  is  expected  to  disprove  the  charge,  where  it  occurred,  or 
whether  it  occurred  in  his  judicial  district,  or  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  it 
fails  utterly  to  state  a cause  of  action  against  this  respondent.” 

Mr.  Douglass,  of  counsel  for  the  Board  of  Managers,  maintained  that  the 
articles  of  impeachment  were  sufficient,  and  contended  that  the  demurrer 
should  be  overruled.  Among  other  things,  he  said: 

“The  House  of  Representatives  has  charged  Judge  Botkin,  respondent  in 
this  case,  with  certain  offenses.  They  have  charged  him  with  being,  while  a 
judge  in  office , publicly  drunk  in  many  places  in  his  district.  They  have 
charged  him  with  being  drunk  during  the  time  of  holding  court.  They  have 
charged  him  with  being  drunk,  (or,  what  is  synonymous  according  to  all 
authorities,  intoxicated ,)  while  acting  as  judge  on  the  bench.  They  have 
charged  him  with  frequenting  places  where  liquor  is  sold  in  violation  of  law; 
with  knowingly  purchasing  liquor  in  places  where  it  was  illegally  sold.  They 
have  charged  him  with  oppressive  use  of  the  powers  of  office;  with  the  op- 
pressive use  of  the  power  to  punish  for  contempt.  They  have  charged  him 
with  blasphemy.  They  have  charged  him  with  using  the  power  of  his  office 
to  rob  the  treasury  of  the  little  town  of  Springfield.  They  have  charged  him 
with  all  these,  and  some  other  offenses;  and  by  his  demurrer  he  says  (for  the 
purposes  of  this  argument  at  least,)  ‘I  am  guilty  of  all  I am  charged  with, 
but  conceding  that  this  is  true,  I have  committed  no  offense  for  which  I can 
be  impeached.’  We  are  therefore  confronted  by  some  of  the  most  important 
questions  that  have  ever  confronted  $ court  ip  tlais  ppjpnionwe^ltji  since  its 

—18 


214 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


organization.  When  the  roll  is  called  upon  the  question  of  whether  this  de- 
murrer will  be  sustained  or  overruled,  as  to  each  one  of  these  charges,  every 
Senator  here  must  place  himself  on  record  as  saying  whether  or  not  in  his 
judgment  these  various  offenses  enumerated,  whatever  they  may  be,  do  or  do 
not  constitute  an  impeachable  offense  under  the  laws  and  constitution  of  this 
State;  and  that  decision  becomes  a part,  not  only  of  the  history  of  the  State, 
but  a part  of  the  history  of  each  member  of  this  court.  . . . 

“What  is  a misdemeanor  in  office?  Why,  a misdemeanor  committed  by  a 
man  at  a time  when  he  is  in  office,  as  distinguished  from  a misdemeanor  com- 
mitted at  a time  when  he  is  not  in  office.  . . . 

“Now,  I want  to  ask  the  court  to  consider  for  a moment,  when  is  a judge 
in  office ? Or  rather,  when  is  he  not  in  office?  Is  there  a lawyer  here,  or  a 
member  of  this  Senate,  who  does  not  know  that  at  any  hour  of  the  day  or 
night  a judge  may  be  called  upon  to  exercise  some  of  the  functions  of  a 
judge,  under  our  constitution  and  our  statutes?  He  is  in  office  from  the  hour 
he  is  sworn  in  until  the  hour  his  successor  qualifies  and  is  sworn  in.  . . . 

“There  have  been  a number  of  judges  impeached  in  this  country,  and  I 
may  as  well  mention  here  some  of  the  most  important  of  these  cases:  Judge 
Addison,  in  Pennsylvania,  was  impeached  and  convicted  for  a non- indictable 
offense;  Judge  Pickering,  a Federal  judge,  was  impeached  and  convicted  for 
a non-indictable  offense;  Judge  Prescott,  probate  judge  in  Massachusetts, 
was  impeached  for  a non-indictable  offense,  and  was  convicted;  Judge  Cox, 
of  Minnesota,  was  impeached  for  an  offense  claimed  to  have  been  non-indict- 
able, and  was  convicted;  Judge  Chase,  an  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  was  impeached  for  an  offense  claimed  to  be  not 
indictable,  but  was  not  convicted,  although  a majority  of  the  Senators  favored 
conviction;  Judge  Hubbell,  of  Wisconsin,  was  impeached  for  misconduct  in 
office,  but  was  acquitted  by  a divided  court;  Judge  Page,  in  Minnesota,  was 
impeached  for  an  offense  claimed  to  be  non-indictable;  (he  was  tried  on  the 
merits  and  was  acquitted,  although  a majority  was  against  him;)  Judge  Peck, 
Federal  judge,  was  impeached,  was  tried  before  the  Senate,  and  acquitted;  and 
Judge  Barnard  was  impeached  in  New  York  for  misconduct  in  office  and  was 
convicted.  That  is  a list  of  the  leading  cases  in  this  country  wherein  judges 
have  been  tried  in  impeachment  proceedings  for  misconduct,  either  personal 
or  official.” 

Mr.  Douglass  took  up  the  several  articles  charging  J udge  Botkin  with  grave 
and  corrupt  offenses,  and  acts  of  gross  personal  and  official  indecency,  and 
discussed  them  at  length.  He  closed  as  follows: 

“ It  devolves  upon  this  court,  in  the  determination  of  the  questions  aris- 
ing on  this  demurrer,  to  fix  for  all  future  time  the  standard  of  judicial  be- 
havior, judicial  integrity,  and  judicial  honor  in  the  great  State  of  Kansas.  If 
you  say  that  that  judge  has  been  guilty  of  the  things  charged  in  this  pro- 
ceeding, and  is  yet  not  impeachable;  if  you  say  these  things  do  not  consti- 
tute a misdemeanor  under  the  constitution;  if  you  say  that  he  can  drag  his 
judicial  ermine  in  the  mud,  as  charged;  if  you  say  that  he  can  be  guilty  of 
blasphemy;  if  you  say  he  can  be  guilty  of  aiding  and  abetting  the  constant 
violation  of  the  law,  and  conniving  at  and  aiding  in  the  plunder  of  a city 
treasury,  as  he  is  charged  with  doing,  you  set  up  a standard  of  judicial  honor 
and  judicial  morality  in  this  State  that  must  redound  to  the  injury  of  the 
commonwealth,  and.  to  the  injury  of  every  man,  woman  and  child  within  its 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


215 


borders.  . . . No  offense  is  small  in  a judicial  officer;  and  I hope  it  will 

be  the  determination,  as  it  is  now  the  high  privilege,  of  this  court  to  set  for 
future  generations  a standard  in  these  matters  that,  instead  of  lowering  the 
tone  of  public  sentiment,  will  raise  it  up;  that,  instead  of  encouraging  vice, 
will  encourage  virtue.  . . . This,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  duty  which  this 

Senate,  in  pronouncing  upon  this  demurrer,  owes  not  less  to  the  law  than  to 
itself  and  to  the  people  of  Kansas.” 

Attorney  General  Ives  followed  Mr.  Douglass  on  the  part  of  the  State,  and 
presented  the  same  general  views  of  the  law.  In  regard  to  the  fourth  article, 
which  charged  Judge  Botkin  with  drunkenness  and  debauchery  at  Leoti,  in  a 
county  outside  of  his  district,  Attorney  General  Ives  said: 

“Article  four  charges  him  with  being  intoxicated  and  engaged  in  a drunken 
and  boisterous  quarrel  on  the  streets  of  Leoti,  and  this  court  can  take  judicial 
notice  that  Wichita  county  is  not  within  his  judicial  district.  The  question 
is,  Was  that  a misdemeanor  in  office?  If  it  was  only  Theodosius  Botkin  that 
was  at  Leoti  that  day,  drunk  and  boisterous  on  the  street,  where  was  the  judge 
of  the  Thirty -second  Judicial  District?  Was  there  a vacancy  in  that  office  at  that 
time?  Was  not  Theodosius  Botkin,  upon  the  streets  of  Leoti  at  that  time,  as 
much  judge  of  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District  as  he  was  when  at  his  home 
in  Springfield?  If  in  that  boisterous  quarrel  upon  the  streets  of  Leoti  there 
had  been  an  affray,  and  Theodosius  Botkin  had  been  killed,  would  it  not  have 
created  a vacancy  in  the  judgeship  of  the  32d  Judicial  District?  . . . 

“I  do  not  believe  that  the  members  of  this  court  will  say  to  the  public  and 
to  the  world  that  Kansas  is  a whited  sepulchre  — beautiful  on  the  outside,  but 
inwardly  full  of  festering  corruption,  and  dishonest  and  corrupt  officials.  I 
say  that  at  this  time  the  people  of  this  State,  through  their  representatives, 
should  meet  this  emergency,  and  should  say  to  the  world  that  they  consider 
drunkenness  in  public  places,  drunkenness  upon  the  bench,  blasphemy,  op- 
pression and  cruelty  in  the  exercise  of  the  duties  of  office,  are  not  such  trivial 
matters  as  shall  not  render  him  unfit  to  hold  the  high  office  of  judge  of  the 
district  court.” 

Mr.  Webb,  of  the  Board  of  Managers,  closed  the  argument  on  the  part  of 
the  State  against  the  demurrer.  (Impeachment  Trial,  pages  191  to  230.)  Mr. 
Webb  had  scarcely  begun  his  argument  when  Judge  Botkin’s  counsel  withdrew 
the  demurrer  to  the  8th  article  — the  article  charging  gross  blasphemy.  The 
strong  and  vigorous  arguments  presented  by  Mr.  Douglass  and  General  Ives 
were  more  than  Judge  Botkin  could  stand  respecting  the  charge  of  blasphemy 
and  impiety,  and  he  made  haste  to  stand  from  under. 

Mr.  Webb  discussed  at  length  the  import  or  meaning  of  the  phrase,  “misde- 
meanor in  office,”  tracing  it  from  its  first  appearance  in  connection  with  im- 
peachment proceedings  in  the  constitution  of  Pennsylvania  in  1790,  down 
through  various  State  constitutions.  Neither  the  full  phrase  nor  the  words 
“in  office”  occur  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  relating  to  impeach- 
ments, and,  hence,  are  not  discussed  either  by  Story  or  Kent,  nor  by  the  Uni- 
ted States  Senate  in  the  impeachment  trials  occurring  before  that  tribunal. 
Mr.  Webb  quoted  the  language  or  phraseology  of  the  several  State  constitu- 


216 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


tions,  showing  a great  diversity  in  expression  as  to  grounds  or  causes  for 
which  impeachment  would  lie,  and  that  in  some  States  care  had  been  taken  to 
define  impeachable  offenses  in  such  manner  that  the  question  raised  by  Judge 
Botkin’s  counsel  on  the  demurrer  could  not  arise  there.  But  several  other 
States  besides  Pennsylvania,  Ohio_and  Kansas  employed  the  same  words  — 
“for  any  misdemeanor  in  office” — without  any  qualifying  words  or  terms. 
We  quote  from  Mr.  Webb’s  argument: 

“In  the  light  of  the  changes  themselves,  atid  the  facts  surrounding  at  the 
time,  I maintain,  that  the  word  ‘misdemeanor,’  in  the  phrase,  ‘for  any  mis- 
demeanor in  office,’  was  intended  to  be  used  in  its  common-law  sense,  and 
embraces  ‘all  immoral  acts  which  tend  to  the  prejudice  of  a community,’ 
whether  punishable  by  fine  or  imprisonment  or  not,  and  includes  not  only 
those  crimes  and  misdemeanors  which  are  specifically  defined  and  denounced 
by  statute,  but  every  public  act  calculated  to  disturb  the  public  peace,  or  to 
offend  public  decency,  or  the  dignity,  credit  or  honor  of  the  State,  including 
drunkenness,  blasphemy,  obscenity,  and  any  conduct  and  speech  calculated 
to  bring  any  high  public  official  into  contempt  and  disgrace  before  the  peo- 
ple, and  his  office  into  disrepute.  . . And  the  words  ‘in  office,’  mean 

while  in  office,  and  not  after  the  expiration  of  the  officer’s  term,  or  after  his 
resignation  or  removal;  and  these  words  ‘in  office’  also  plainly  indicate  that 
‘misdemeanors’  of  any  character,  committed  by  an  impeachable  officer  while 
in  office,  are  impeachable  offenses.” 

Mr.  Webb  discussed  the  articles  of  impeachment  at  length,  contending  that 
each  article  and  each  specification  set  forth  or  stated  an  offense  for  which  im- 
peachment and  removal  from  office  would  lie  under  the  constitution  of  Kan- 
sas. We  quote  further  from  Mr.  Webb’s  argument: 

“By  the  demurrer  of  the  respondent,  all  that  is  set  forth  in  these  articles 
(except  the  eighth,  as  to  which  the  demurrer  was  withdrawn)  is  admitted  to 
be  true.  A more  solemn  duty  never  was  devolved  by  the  law  upon  any  hu- 
man tribunal  than  that  devolved  upon  this  court  by  the  constitution  and  laws, 
in  settling  and  determining  the  effect  of  the  articles  of  impeachment,  as  put 
to  the  severest  test  by  the  demurrer  which  has  been  interposed  by  the  re- 
spondent. It  is  for  this  court  to  say  whether  or  not  the  acts  of  malfeasance, 
and  mal  administration,  acts  of  personal  misconduct,  those  connected  with  no 
official  duty,  but  yet  committed  within  the  term  for  which  the  respondent  was 
elected,  constitute  offenses  under  the  constitution  of  this  State  for  which  he 
may  be  removed  upon  impeachment. 

“Mr.  President,  this  is  a government  of  law,  not  of  men.  While  constitu- 
tions and  laws  do  not  administer  and  execute  themselves  — while  natural  per- 
sons, selected  for  their  supposed  qualifications  and  fitness  as  to  morality, 
decency,  good  behavior,  and  proper  learning,  are  chosen  by  the  people  to  exe- 
cute the  laws  enacted  for  their  protection  — nevertheless,  it  is  the  law  that 
governs,  and  no  man  is  above  the  law.  The  law  may  lay  its  hand  upon  any 
officer  of  this  State,  from  the  chief  magistrate  to  any  township  officer  within 
our  borders.  If  it  were  a government  of  men,  we  would  likely  see  many  acts 
of  the  grossest  character  on  the  part  of  public  officers,  acts  constituting  both 
personal  and  official  misconduct,  and  we  would  see  the  State  itself  endangered 
by  being  brought  into  disrespect  and  disgrace?  and  the  law  itself  would  be 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


217 


found  wholly  inadequate  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  made.  We  would 
see  persons  deprived  of  their  legal  rights;  we  would  see  innocent  persons  im- 
prisoned; we  would  see  men  deprived  of  their  property  without  due  process 
of  law;  and  unless  this  court  in  this  case  shall,  by  its  decision  upon  this  de- 
murrer, say  that  the  offenses  charged  in  the  articles  of  impeachment  against 
the  respondent  do  constitute  impeachable  offenses  for  which  he  may  be  re- 
moved from  office  upon  sufficient  proof,  then  I undertake  to  say  that  our 
government  fails  to  accomplish  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  designed.” 

Senator  Kelley  of  Crawford:  I would  like  to  ask  one  question.  Counsel 
for  the  respondent  claimed  that  these  specifications  are  not  definite  enough. 
I do  not  remember  of  hearing  Judge  Webb  refer  to  that,  and  I would  like  to 
have  his  opinion  in  regard  to  it. 

Mr.  Webb:  I was  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  the  learned  counsel  who 
opened  the  argument  on  the  part  of  the  respondent  consumed  considerable 
time  in  giving  us  his  views,  and  in  citing  authorities  supposed  to  support  his 
views  upon  the  proposition,  that  these  articles  and  specifications  were  too  in- 
definite and  uncertain.  But  the  plan  of  tihe  argument  upon  the  part  of  the 
Board  of  Managers  and  the  State,  as  I stated  at  the  outset,  naturally  took  that 
branch  away  from  my  consideration.  I had  thought  it  was  sufficiently  dis- 
cussed by  the  learned  counsel  who  represents  the  Board  of  Managers,  who 
made  the  opening  argument  on  our  side  of  the  case;  but  if  not,  in  response 
to  the  question  propounded  by  the  Senator  from  Crawford,  I have  this  to  say : 
The  changes  in  procedure  taken  upon  impeachments  made  in  this  country  an 
hundred  years  ago,  in  all  those  States  where  there  has  not  been  prescribed  any 
punishment  except  removal  from  office,  and  especially  in  those  States  where 
in  addition  to  the  provision  prescribing  punishment  by  removal  and  disqual- 
ification alone,  it  is  expressly  declared  that  the  accused  party,  whether  acquit- 
ted or  convicted,  shall  be  nevertheless  subject  to  indictment,  trial  and 
punishment  according  to  law,  the  character  and  quality  of  impeachment  pro- 
ceedings are  changed  from  the  strict  rules  governing  criminal  actions  to  the 

liberal  rules  which  obtain  and  control  in  civil  actions All  that  was 

read  from  Wharton’s  Precedents  of  Indictments  was  and  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment, without  any  kind  of  appropriate  application  to  anything  in  this  case. 
And  why?  Proceedings  upon  impeachment  are  in  their  nature  civil.  All  that 
is  wanted  is  to  designate  the  person,  the  office  to  which  he  was  elected  and 
holds,  the  time  he  entered  upon  it,  the  nature  and  character  of  the  acts,  and 
when  committed  — showing  that  they  were  committed  within  the  term  for 
which  he  was  elected,  and  while  holding  office  — and  that  in  their  nature  and 
character  they  constitute  a “misdemeanor,”  as  that  word  is  understood  in 
common  and  general  parlance;  and  when  that  is  said,  any  articles  of  im- 
peachment are  complete  and  sufficient  under  the  laws  of  this  State,  or  any 

other  State  having  similar  laws In  my  judgment  there  is  not 

one  of  these  articles  that  is  not  full  and  complete  in  certainty  and  in  defi- 
niteness— not  one  which  does  not  fully  advise  and  inform  the  respondent  of 
the  nature  and  character  of  the  charge  preferred  against  him  by  the  House 
of  Representatives.  They  tell  him  when  and  where  the  offense  was  supposed 
to  have  been  committed  by  him.  What  more  does  he  want?  He  comes  in 
here  by  his  demurrer  and  says:  “All  that  is  true;  I was  drunk  seventeen  times 
in  my  district;  I was  drunk  four  times  upon  the  bench;  I was  drunk  ten  times 
while  the  courts  in  my  district  were  in  session,  and  while  I was  in  the  county 


218 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


towns  for  the  purpose  of  holding  court.  I am  a habitual  drunkard.’’  And  he 
says  — 

Senator  Schilling:  I apprehend  the  Senator  from  Crawford  has  undoubt- 
edly been  satisfactorily  answered,  and  I call  “time.” 

Mr.  Hanback  closed  the  discussion  on  the  demurrer  for  Judge  Botkin.  His 
argument  was  characteristic  of  the  whole  defense.  Here  are  a few  extracts 
from  it: 

“It  is  twenty  years  or  more  since  I first  met  the  respondent,  Judge  Theo- 
dosius Botkin,  and  I venture  to  say  this  much,  that  during  all  that  time,  of 
long,  long  years  of  acquaintance,  I never  saw  him  in  any  other  than  a true- 
hearted, noble  exemplification  of  manly  manhood.  If  I could  draw  aside  the 
curtain  of  the  years  I would  show  him  a boy  at  the  plow,  his  music  the  song 
of  birds  and  the  lowing  of  herds,  steadily  moving  onward  and  upward  in  the 
scale;  a‘ soldier  for  his  country;  aye,  a compeer  of  noble  men;  and  afterward 
filling  offices  of  high  trust  in  this  State,  until  brought  by  the  people,  and  by 
the  votes  of  the  people,  to  the  high  place  he  now  fills.  . . . 

“This  is  a court  from  the  people.  The  voice  of  the  House  commanding,  as 
it  did  under  the  constitution,  the  attention  of  this  body,  received  that  just  at- 
tention its  call  demanded.  It  came  here  by  its  managers,  chosen  by  its  will, 
to  prefer  charges  against  an  officer  of  the  State.  What  charges  were  pre- 
ferred? What  crimes  are  alleged  to  have  been  committed?  You  have  them 
before  you  here,  as  they  have  been  rung  in  your  ears;  and  I stand  here  to- 
night to  say  that  there  is  no  charge  made  there  which  justifies  the  deliberate 
attention  of  this  body.  I say  that  the  respondent  at  the  bar  is  entitled  to  be 
shown  what  has  been  exhibited  against  him,  and  the  charges  upon  which  he  is 
to  answer,  and  that  the  offense  must  be  clearly  stated.  The  proposition  is 
simply  this:  that  you  can  make  a shot-gun  charge  of  this  thing;  that  you  can 
ram  down  in  the  chambers  a set  of  charges,  and  fire  them  off,  and  pick  up  the 
pieces  and  hold  them  together  before  this  body  as  a charge  upon  which  you 
have  to  have  a trial.  I deny  that  proposition.  . . . The  constitution  says 

in  so  many  words,  that  “the  Governor  and  all  other  officers  under  this  consti- 
tution may  be  impeached  for  any  misdemeanor  in  office.”  What  does  it  mean 
when  it  says  misdemeanors?  Does  it  mean  something  that  we  know  not  of  — 
something  that  existed  two  hundred  years  ago?  Does  it  mean  any  charge 
that  may  be  brought  by  a pack  of  hounds  that  follows  the  trail  after  humanity 
sometimes?  . . . 

“Can  it  be  said  for  a minute,  can  it  be  maintained  that  the  first  charge 
made  here,  and  all  that  follows  in  the  specifications,  shows  any  cause  for  ex- 
amination here?  This  demurrer  was  interposed  against  the  express  objec- 
tion of  Theodosius  Botkin.  He  is  poor;  he  is  poverty-stricken;  he  stands 
here  without  a dollar,  as  he  has  shown  to  you.  His  attorneys  are  poor,  and 
we  are  all  in  the  same  pocket;  and  we  agreed  that  it  would  be  better  for  him 
to  exercise  his  constitutional  right  of  objecting  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  in- 
dictment. I want  to  say  that  I do  not  come  here  confessing  that  he  is  a 
drunkard  in  the  gutter;  . . . but  when  the  opening  charge  in  this  series 

of  charges  is  made,  that  he  ‘has  been  repeatedly  intoxicated  in  public  places 
throughout  the  judicial  district,  to  the  manifest  scandal  of  the  administration 
of  justice,’  ...  I say  that  the  charge  is  not  such  that  should  commend  it 
to  the  judgment  of  this  court.  But  outside  of  that,  I say  that  even  though  it 
be  specific  enough  in  its  terms,  it  is  a charge,  not  that  Theodosius  Botkin 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL . 


219 


sitting  as  a judge,  not  of  Botkin  as  the  officer  of  the  law,  but  of  Botkin  as  the 
citizen;  and  I assume  as  part  of  the  defense  in  this  case,  that  in  order  to 
constitute  the  offense  as  contemplated  by  law  which  would  warrant  the  im- 
peachment and  trial  before  the  court  of  impeachment,  the  offense  must  have 
been  committed  by  the  judge  in  his  official  capacity.  I assume  that  it  was 
not,  and  it  is  not,  the  intention  of  the  law  to  come  upon  the  citizen  who  hap- 
pens to  be  occupying  an  official  place,  for  a supposed  offense,  or  upon  a 
charge  of  an  act  committed  by  him  while  he  was  not  engaged  as  a public 
officer,  but  in  the  private  walks  of  life  as  a citizen.  ...  I submit  to  you 
the  true  rule  to  be,  that  he  is  a judge  when  exercising  the  prerogatives,  of 
his  office;  that  he  is  responsible  for  the  fair  determination  of  the  rights  of 
parties  that  come  before  him  according  to  his  judgment;  that  he  is  not  to  be 
held  responsible  for  errors  innocently  committed?” 

The  arguments  on  the  part  of  the  State  and  of  Judge  Botkin  having  been 
concluded,  Senators  proceeded  to  consider  and  determine  the  demurrer, 
which  was  overruled  on  the  28th  of  April.  In  the  light  of  the  vote  given  on 
the  22d  of  May,  after  hearing  the  testimony,  the  opinions  expressed  by  some 
of  the  Senators  on  the  demurrer  are  worth  remembering;  ( Impeachment  Trial, 
pages  289  to  265): 

Senatob  Mohlek:  ...  I do  not  wish  anything  I may  say  to  be  con- 

strued into  an  expression  of  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
accused  of  any  charge  preferred  against  him.  If  I should  vote  here  on  the 
question  of  sustaining  or  overruling  this  demurrer,  I should  record  my  vote 
in  favor  of  overruling  it  — overruling  it  as  to  each  and  every  charge,  and 
each  and  every  specification.  My  reasons  for  that  are  these:  It  is  not  this 
Board  of  Managers  that  presents  these  charges.  It  is  not  any  prosecutor  from 
the  western  part  of  the  State,  or  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  that  pre- 
fers these  charges.  These  charges  are  preferred  under  the  constitution  of 
the  State,  by  a coordinate  branch  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Kansas, 
of  equal  power  and  of  equal  dignity  as  the  Senate.  . . . 

Much  fault  has  been  found  with  the  indefiniteness  of  some  of  the  charges. 
. . . The  constitution  expressly  provides  that  the  accused  [in  a criminal 

case  in  the  district  court  ] shall  be  informed  of  the  nature  and  character  of 
the  offense  in  the  manner  prescribed,  and  be  informed  of  the  nature  and 
cause  of  the  accusation,  so  as  to  give  the  party  an  opportunity  to  make  his  de- 
fense thereto.  But  we  have  no  such  rules  with  reference  to  the  court  of 
impeachment.  . . . We  must  not  look  so  much  to  the  charge  as  to  the  evi- 
dence adduced  under  the  charge.  I do  not  know  what  the  evidence  would  be  in 
this  case,  and  I do  not  care.  I am  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  before  this  man 
can  be  convicted  he  must  be  proven  guilty  of  a misdemeanor  in  office.  By 
“misdemeanor  in  office,’1 1 mean  an  act  committed  by  him  in  his  official  capac- 
ity; in  other  words,  that  anything  he  may  do  while  off  the  bench  he  does  as 
an  individual  and  not  as  a judge.  . . . 

Then  again,  all  impeachments  shall  be  tried  by  the  Senate.  I take  this 
view,  that  it  is  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  that  house  alone,  that  is  to 
judge  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  articles  of  impeachment;  that  when  it,  a co- 
ordinate branch  of  the  Legislature,  approves  the  articles  which  it  sends  here, 
it  is  not  within  our  power  to  challenge  their  sufficiency.  We  must  hear  the 
evidence  and  decide,  and  we  must  acquit  or  convict  the  man  if  the  evidence 
sustains  it. 


220 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


To  a layman  this  reasoniDg  of  Senator  Mohler  seems  contradictory.  These 
“ charges,’*  made  by  articles  of  impeachment,  ought  to  be  sufficient  in  form 
and  substance  to  show  on  their  face  that  a “misdemeanor  in  office”  had  been 
committed.  If  they  do  not  so  show,  there  is  nothing  for  the  Senate  to  “try.” 
Six,  if  not  seven,  of  the  ten  articles  of  impeachment  against  Judge  Botkin 
charge  him  with  offenses  committed  “while  off  the  bench,”  and  therefore,  ac- 
cording to  Senator  Mohler,  they  do  not  charge  “impeachable  offenses;”  and 
yet  Senator  Mohler  “would  vote  in  favor  of  overruling  the  demurrer  as  to  each 
and  every  charge  and  specification” — and  thus  force  the  State,  at  great  ex- 
pense, to  present  its  evidence  to  prove  what  (no  matter  how  plainly  estab- 
lished) would  still  be  unimpeachable  offenses.  But  Senator  Mohler  did  not 
vote  at  all  on  the  demurrer.  Other  Senators  expressed  themselves  as  follows: 

Senatob  Bentley:  My  judgment  is,  that  a demurrer  in  a case  of  this  kind 
is  not  proper  practice.  The  demurrer  simply  means,  in  this  case,  a motion 
to  strike  out  or  quash,  and  that  is  its  effect.  With  that  view  of  the  case,  I am 
in  favor  of  striking  out  all  of  articles  four,  five,  and  six,  and  overruling  the 
demurrer  of  respondent  as  to  the  other  articles.  . . . 

“From  the  argument  of  respondent’s  counsel,  Judge  Botkin  in  his  district 
is  portrayed  as  playing  a dual  role.  When  on  the  bench  he  was  a court;  when 
he  left  the  bench  and  went  to  supper  he  was  an  individual,  and  no  longer  a 
court.  Hence,  they  argue  that  if  he  became  intoxicated  off  the  bench,  that 
he  cannot  be  held  to  answer  in  this  court  of  impeachment.  I am  unable  to 
draw  the  line  between  the  individual  and  the  judge.  I am  unable  to  see  where 
the  judge  leaves  off  and  the  citizen  begins.  . . . My  theory  is,  that  when 

a judge  is  inducted  into  office,  and  takes  the  oath  of  office,  he  continues  to  be 
a judge  until  his  successor  is  elected  and  qualified.  He  is  sworn  to  support 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  State  of  Kansas.  He  must 
not  violate  the  constitution  of  this  State;  if  he  does,  he  is  liable  to  impeach- 
ment. . . . For  the  purposes  of  this  demurrer,  the  charges,  articles,  and 

specifications  thereunder  are  to  be  taken  as  true,  as  stated.  Upon  this  theory, 
a district  judge,  guilty  of  being  intoxicated  on  many  occasions  as  charged,  is 
unfit  to  continue  in  office  and  to  discharge  the  exalted  functions  of  that 
office;  . . . and  I cannot  afford  to  go  down  upon  this  record  as  an  advo- 

cate of  the  doctrine  that  a man  in  this  State,  who  holds  the  high  office  of 
judge  of  the  district  court  in  any  of  the  judicial  districts  of  this  State,  can 
descend  to  the  level  of  a common  drunkard,  debaucher,  and  brawler,  and  not 
be  answerable  to  the  people  in  a court  of  this  character.  I feel  that  my  vote 
cast  upon  the  other  side  of  this  question  would  do  an  injustice  and  would  mis- 
represent the  sentiment  of  the  people  of  my  district,  who  are  law  abiding, 
orderly,  and  intelligent  to  the  highest  degree.  If  the  district  judge  of  my  ju- 
dicial district  had  been  guilty  of  one-tenth  of  the  misconduct  attributed  to 
Judge  Botkin,  and  which  is  for  the  purposes  of  this  plea  admitted  as  being 
true,  instead  of  being  upon  the  bench  he  would  now  be  in  the  jail  of  Sedgwick 
county.  . . . 

“I  am  unable  to  draw  any  fine  line  of  distinction  between  the  court  and  the 
individual.  On  the  bench,  or  off,  Judge  Botkin  was  to  my  mind  always  judge 
of  the  Thirty- second  Judicial  District  of  Kansas.  Believing  this  to  be  the 
case,  I shall  vote  to  overrule  the  demurrer  to  all  of  the  articles  except  those 
which  I have  enumerated.” 


THE  BOTKIN  "TRIAL. 


221 


And  yet,  although  every  charge  preferred  against  Judge  Botkin  had  been 
proven  by  overwhelming  testimony,  Senator  Bentley,  from  personal  and  par- 
tisan considerations,  goes  upon  the  record  finally  as  voting  “not  guilty”  on 
every  article. 

Senator  Berry:  I believe  this  court  has  the  undoubted  right  to  entertain 
and  sustain  the  demurrer  as  to  such  articles  as  do  not  charge  the  respondent 
with  a ‘ misdemeanor  in  office,”  as  contemplated  by  section  27,  article  2,  of 
the  constitution.  A “misdemeanor  in  office”  need  not  be  a misdemeanor  un- 
der the  statute.  Many  offenses  made  misdemeanors  by  statute  could  have  no 
possible  connection  with  or  effect  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  a public 
officer.  . . . Assault,  and  being  intoxicated,  are  made  misdemeanors  under 

the  statutes,  yet  an  officer  could  be  guilty  of  these  and  still  honestly  and  con- 
scientiously discharge  every  function  of  his  office  with  conspicuous  ability. 
Numerous  instances  of  this  fact  have  come  within  the  knowledge  of  every 
observer.  It  is  my  opinion,  therefore,  that  by  “misdemeanor  in  office”  in 
the  constitution,  its  framers  meant  such  official  acts  or  misconduct  as  injuri- 
ously affected  or  incapacitated  an  officer  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties.  . . . 
Holding  these  views,  I am  fully  convinced  that  articles  1,  2,  4,  5 and  6 do  not 
charge  the  respondent  with  “misdemeanor  in  office.”  . . . Articles  3,  7,  9 

and  10  plainly  charge  the  respondent  with  official  misconduct  and  mal  adminis- 
tration of  office.  The  charge  that  he  was  drunk  upon  the  bench  while  sitting 
as  judge;  that  he  has  been  an  habitual  user  of  intoxicating  liquors  to  such  an 
excess  as  to  incapacitate  him  for  a clear-minded  discharge  of  his  judicial 
functions;  that  he  willfully,  maliciously,  oppressively,  partially  and  illegally 
exercised  the  functions  of  his  judicial  office,  and  abused  his  authority  therein, 
to  the  oppression  of  suitors  and  others,  certainly  constitute  “misdemeanors 
in  office”  of  the  gravest  character.  I therefore  vote  to  overrule  the  demurrer 
as  to  the  last  articles  named,  and  put  the  respondent  on  his  trial  for  the  offenses 
charged  therein. 

And  yet  Senator  Berry,  like  Senator  Bentley,  with  evidence  sufficient  to  sup- 
port all  the  articles  which  he  conceded  to  be  good,  went  back  on  his  clear  con- 
victions of  right  and  duty,  as  stated  above,  and  voted  “not  guilty”  as  to 
them  all. 

Senator  Carroll  of  Miami:  Mr.  President,  I have  known  the  respondent 
personally  for  fifteen  years.  He  has  been  my  neighbor  and  friend.  He  is  an 
old  soldier,  and  all  my  sympathies  are  in  his  favor;  but  as  a member  of  this 
court,  acting  under  the  solemn  obligation  of  my  oath,  I am  required  to  de- 
cide this  question  according  to  the  law  of  the  case  as  I understand  it.  I can- 
not consent  to  the  proposition,  that  a judge  of  the  district  court  of  Kansas 
can  become  repeatedly  intoxicated  in  the  streets  and  public  places  in  the  vari- 
ous cities  of  his  district,  and  not  commit  an  offense  which  would  render  him 
liable  to  impeachment.  . . . 

Senator  Elliston:  . . . Misdemeanor,  as  employed,  means  miscon- 

duct, misbehavior,  and. includes  everything  from  the  highest  felony  to  the 
lowest  offense  against  good  morals  and  decency,  calculated  to  forfeit  confi- 
dence or  respect;  and  so  elastic  as  to  be  adjustable  to  the  public  estimate 
of  these  qualities  at  all  periods.  “In  office”  must  mean,  during  incum- 
bency of  or  while  in  office;  otherwise,  it  forces  us  to  say  “misdemeanor” 


222 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


only  means  felony,  or  concede  that  the  phrase  abrogates  the  remainder  of 
the  section.  ...  I am  convinced  that  each  article,  indeed  each  speci- 
fication of  the  first  four  articles,  states  a technical  misdemeanor.  I am 
further  persuaded  that  each  and  every  article  discloses  such  misconduct  as 
must  deprive  the  judge  of  that  measure  of  public  respect  and  confidence 
indispensable  to  the  proper  and  satisfactory  discharge  of  his  official  duties, 
and  therefore  must  vote  to  overrule  the  demurrer  as  to  each  and  all  articles. 

Senatob  Emeet:  I am  of  the  opinion  that  a district  judge  should  not  be 
impeached  and  removed  from  office  for  light  and  trivial  causes.  I cannot 
agree  that  every  misdemeanor  committed  by  him  as  an  individual,  and  having 
no  connection  with  the  duties  of  his  office,  is  an  impeachable  offense,  but  think 
that  for  such  offense  he  must  be  punished  by  the  laws  applicable  to  all  citi- 
zens. Yet  the  administration  of  justice  demands  that  he  at  all  times  hold 
himself  in  readiness  to  administer  the  law  fairly  and  impartially,  and  with 
dignity  and  propriety.  Article  one  charges  the  respondent  with  being  repeat- 
edly intoxicated  in  public  places  throughout  his  district.  The  ten  specifica- 
tions locate  the  times  and  places  where  intoxicated  and  under  the  influence  of 
intoxicating  liquors.  Whether  the  intoxication  charged  affected  his  ability, to 
properly  perform  his  duties , depends  upon  the  degree  of  intoxication;  and  the 
charges,  in  my  judgment,  may  or  may  not  state  an  offense,  owing  to  the  de- 
gree of  intoxication.  I am  therefore  constrained  to  vote  to  overrule  the  de- 
murrer. 

Here  is  another  evidence  of  pigmy  statesmanship,  and  let  it  be  remembered 
that  Senator  Emery  yielded  to  the  political  pressure  and  voted  “not  guilty,” 
when  the  evidence  of  Judge  Botkin’s  guilt  was  beyond  a shadow  of  doubt. 

Senatob  Foeney:  Under  our  constitution,  the  House  of  Representative  has 
the  exclusive  prerogative  to  prepare  and  present  articles  of  impeachment. 
The  Senate,  after  the  articles  are  filed,  should  hear  the  testimony  offered  by 
the  Board  of  Managers  on  the  part  of  the  House,  and  after  a full  hearing  de- 
cide as  to  whether  the  evidence  is  sufficient  to  convict  the  respondent  of  the 
offenses  charged.  I do  not  believe  that  the  strict  rules  of  pleading  in  crimi- 
nal cases  in  our  courts  should  be  held  necessary  in  presenting  articles  of 
impeachment.  . . . The  meaning  of  the  phrase  “in  office,”  as  used  in  our 

constitution,  in  that  part  thereof  defining  the  crimes  for  which  an  officer 
may  be  impeached,  simply  means,  while  the  incumbent  is  discharging  the  du- 
ties of  the  office;  or,  in  other  words,  from  the  time  the  officer  is  elected  and 
qualified  till  his  successor  is  elected  and  qualified.  . . . The  phrase  “in  of- 

fice” has  been  added  to  the  definition  of  impeachable  offenses,  to  distinguish 
between  the  American  and  English  idea  of  impeachment.  In  England  a private 
citizen  could  be  impeached,  and  an  officer  could  be  impeached  for  acts  com- 
mitted before  he  was  elected  or  appointed  to  the  office.  In  the  United  States, 
where  the  authority  to  impeach  an  officer  .for  high  crimes  is  defined,  our  ear- 
liest constitution-makers,  not  being  in  sympathy  with  that  idea,  limited  the 
crimes  for  which  an  officer  can  be  impeached  to  acts  committed  while  an  offi- 
cer. I believe  that  a judge  of  the  district  court  can  be  impeached  for  crimes 
committed  outside  of  his  judicial  district.  ...  • 

Senatob  Gillett:  I cannot  yield  my  assent  to  the  doctrine  that  impeach- 
ment will  lie  for  an  alleged  offense  which  is  not  indictable,  and  which  is  not 
charged  to  have  in  any  way  affected  the  administration  of  official  duty.  There 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


223 


is,  in  my  judgment,  only  one  forum  where  individual  habits  and  questions  of 
moral  or  immoral  practices,  not  affecting  the  discharge  of  official  duties,  may 
be  tried,  and  that  is  at  the  ballot-box  of  the  district  selecting  the  officer.  . . 

Senator  Harkness:  We  are  a constitutional  tribunal  solely,  bound  by  no 
law,  either  statute  or  common,  which  may  limit  our  constitutional  preroga- 
tive, save,  perhaps,  the  precedents  established  by  parliamentary  bodies.  We 
are  a law  unto  ourselves,  bound  only  by  the  natural  principles  of  equity  and 
justice,  and  that  salus  populi  supremo,  est  lex.  In  my  opinion,  the  weight  of 
authority  is  to  the  effect  that  there  is  scarcely  any  limit  to  the  offenses  for 
which  impeachment  will  lie,  provided  there  is  involved  in  the  commission 
thereof  moral  turpitude,  or  public  scandal  or  disgrace.  Impeachable  offenses 
are  as  various  as  the  abuses  of  office,  and  as  ramified  as  scandalous  miscon- 
duct can  go.  Impeachment  is  designed  to  remove  unfit  persons  from  office. 

I am  further  of  the  opinion  that  the  words  “in  office,”  as  used  in  the  consti- 
tution, fairly  interpreted,  should  be  construed  as  meaning  “during  the  incum- 
bent’s term  of  office,”  and  not  simply,  “while  engaged  in  the  discharge  of  his 
official  duties.”  The  latter  interpretation  would,  to  a great  extent,  nullify  the 
impeachment  section  of  our  constitution. 

No  clearer  statement  of  the  law  was  made  by  any  Senator  than  that  stated 
by  Senator  Harkness;  but  he  entertained  the  opinion  that  articles  five  and  six 
did  not  state  impeachable  offenses,  and  voted  to  sustain  the  demurrer  as  to 
those  articles,  and  to  overrule  it  as  to  the  other  articles.  Senator  Hays  re- 
garded it  as  the  duty  of  the  Senate  to  hear  the  evidence,  and  voted  to  overrule 
the  demurrer  as  to  all  the  articles.  Senator  Lockard  said  that  he  could  not 
“vote  to  put  the  respondent  on  his  trial  upon  any  charge  that  he  would  not 
vote  to  convict  on  if  proven;”  that  the  words  “in  office,”  meant  that  “no  offi- 
cial can  be  impeached  except  for  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  or  misconduct, 
while  performing  some  of  the  functions  of  his  office.”  He  therefore  voted  to 
sustain  the  demurrer  as  to  articles  one,  two,  four,  five,  and  six,  and  overrule 
it  as  to  articles  three,  seven,  nine,  and  ten. 

Senator  Long:  ...  I believe  the  term  “in  office”  means  “while  in  of- 
fice,” and  that  an  officer  may  be  impeached  for  acts  committed  while  in  office, 
though  they  be  not  indictable,  and  not  done  in  an  official  capacity.  The  com- 
mission of  any  act,  though  not  immediately  connected  with  the  execution  of 
his  office,  which  disqualifies,  and  renders  him  incapable  of  performing  the 
duties  of  an  office  requiring  dignity,  confidence,  ability,  and  integrity,  may 
reasonably  be  construed  to  be  a misdemeanor  in  office.  ...  I vote  to 
overrule  the  demurrer  as  to  each  and  every  article. 

Senator  Meohem:  I desire  that  my  explanation  shall  go  to  the  entire  arti-  \ 
cles  of  impeachment.  The  difficulty  that  we  are  met  with  on  this  demurrer  \ 
arises  from  a section  of  the  constitution,  which  provides  that  judges  of  the 
district  court  may  be  impeached  for  misdemeanors  in  office.  It  seems  to  me 
very  clear,  that  the  word  “misdemeanor”  should  be  taken,  not  as  it  is  under- 
stood in  the  criminal  statute,  as  an  offense  less  than  felony,  but  in  its  broader 
and  popular  sense,  meaning  misconduct.  . . . The  greatest  difficulty,  how- 

ever, is  upon  the  two  words,  “in  office.”  Does  it  apply  to  offenses  commit- 
ted while  in  office,  or  does  it  apply  to  offenses  with  reference  purely  to  official 


224 


POPULIST  HAXD-BOOK. 


conduct?  Impeachment  is  defined  as  an  accusation;  a charge.  It  is  the  ci- 
tation before  a tribunal  for  official  misconduct.  Now  then,  if  a judge  can  be 
impeached  for  any  misdemeanor  while  in  office,  the  court  of  impeachment  re- 
solves itself  into  a criminal  court  for  the  punishment  of  crimes  under  the  statute. 
Such,  clearly,  was  never  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  our  constitution.  . . . 

Senatob  Weight:  ...  I vote  to  sustain  the  demurrer  to  articles  1,  2, 

4,  5,  and  6 of  the  impeachment,  for  the  following  reasons:  In  articles  1 and  2 
the  charge  is  made  that  Judge  Botkin  was  intoxicated  upon  the  streets  of  cer- 
tain towns  in  his  judicial  district,  but  it  is  not  charged  or  claimed  that  the 
rights  of  any  one  were  abridged  in  any  way,  or  interfered  with  in  the  least. 
In  article  4 it  is  charged  that  he  was  drunk  and  under  the  influence  of  intoxi- 
cating liquor.  This  is  charged  to  have  occurred  outside  of  his  judicial  district, 
and  he  certainly  was  not  acting  in  an  official  capacity  at  that  time.  In  arti- 
cle 5 the  respondent  is  charged  with  visiting  drug  stores  and  other  places 
where  intoxicating  liquors  were  sold  unlawfully.  Article  6 charges  him  with 
having  “illegally  bought  intoxicating  liquors  from  persons  selling  the  same 
in  violation  of  law.”  It  does  not  appear  from  the  charges  and  specifications, 
that  he  committed  any  of  these  acts  in  an  official  capacity . . . . 

The  vote  was  taken  on  each  article,  whether  the  “demurrer”  thereto  should 
be  sustained.  The  following  will  sufficiently  designate  the  vote  of  each  Sena- 
tor: 

Article  1.  Yeas,  Senators  Berry,  Gillett.  Howard,  Kimball,  Lockard,  Mechem, 
Boe,  Schilling,  and  Wright  — 9.  Nays,  23.  Absent,  Senators  Buchan,  John- 
son, Kirkpatrick,  McTaggart,  Martin,  Mohler,  and  Rush — 7. 

Article  2.  Yeas,  Senators  Berry,  Gillett,  Howard,  Kelley  of  Crawford,  Lock- 
ard, Mechem,  Norton,  Roe,  Schilling,  and  Wright — 10.  Nays,  22.  Absent, 
Senators  Buchan,  Johnson,  Kirkpatrick,  McTaggart,  Martin,  Mohler,  and 
Rush— 7. 

Article  3.  Yeas,  none..  Nays,  32.  Absent,  Senators  Buchan,  Johnson,  Kirk- 
patrick, McTaggart,  Martin,  Mohler,  and  Rush — 7. 

Article  4.  Yeas,  Senators  Bentley,  Berry,  Carroll  of  Leavenworth,  Carroll 
of  Miami,  Emery,  Gillett,  Howard,  Kelly  of  McPherson,  Lockard,  Mechem, 
Moody.  Murdock,  Norton,  Rankin,  Richter,  Roe,  Schilling,  Senior,  and  Wright 
— 19.  Nays,  13.  Absent,  Senators  Buchan,  Johnson,Kirkpatrick,  McTaggart, 
Martin,  Mohler.  and  Rush — 7. 

Article  5.  Yeas,  Senators  Bentley,  Berry,  Carroll  of  Leavenworth,  Emery, 
Gillett,  Harkness,  Howard,  Kelley  of  Crawford,  Kelly  of  McPherson,  Kimball, 
Lockard,  Mechem,  Moody,  Murdock,  Norton,  Richter,  Schilling,  Senior, 
Tucker,  Wheeler,  and  Wright  — 22.  Nays,  10.  Absent,  Senators  Buchan, 
Johnson,  Kirkpatrick,  McTaggart,  Martin.  Mohler,  and  Rush  — 7. 

Article  6.  Yeas,  Senators  Bentley,  Berry,  Carroll  of  Leavenworth,  Emery, 
Gillett,  Harkness,  Howard,  Kelley  of  Crawford.  Kelly  of  McPherson,  Kimball, 
Lockard,  Mechem,  Moody,  Murdock,  Norton,  Richter,  Roe,  Schilling.  Senior, 
Wheeler,  and  Wright  — 21.  Nays,  11.  Absent,  Senators  Buchan,  Johnson, 
Kirkpatrick,  McTaggart.  Martin,  Mohler,  and  Rush — 7. 

Article  7.  Yeas,  none.  Nays.  32.  Absent,  Senators  Buchan,  Kirkpatrick, 
Johnson,  McTaggart,  Martin,  Mohler,  and  Rush — 7. 

Article  8.  Demurrer  withdrawn;  no  vote. 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


225 


Article9.  Yeas,  none.  Nays,  32.  Absent,  Senators  Buchan,  Johnson,  Kirk- 
patrick, McTaggart,  Martin,  Mohler,  and  Rush — 7. 

Article  10.  Yeas,  none.  Nays,  32.  Absent,  Senators  Buchan,  Johnson, 
Kirkpatrick,  McTaggart,  Martin,  Mohler,  and  Rush — 7. 

This  vote  shows  that  the  “demurrer”  was  sustained  as  to  the  4th,  5th,  and 
6th  articles,  and  overruled  as  to  all  the  others. 

Botkin’s  Answer. — The  overruling  of  the  demurrer  to  the  1st,  2d,  3d,  7th, 
9th  and  10th  articles,  and  the  demurrer  being  withdrawn  as  to  the  8th  article, 
Judge  Botkin  filed  his  answer,  pleading  that  he  was  “ not  guilty  of  the  said 
supposed  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  in  office,  or  any  of  them  laid  to  his 
charge,  in  the  manner  and  form  as  the  honorable  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives have  in  and  by  the  said  charges  complained  against  him.”  (Impeach- 
ment Trial,  p.  272.) 

The  Testimony. — Upon  the  issue  joined  by  the  respondent’s  plea,  the  tes- 
timony was  taken.  The  Board  of  Managers  called  and  examined  50  wit- 
nesses on  the  part  of  the  State,  in  support  of  the  articles  of  impeachment, 
and  also  offered  the  records  of  the  district  court  of  Seward  county  respect- 
ing the  charges  set  forth  in  the  9th  and  10th  articles,  and  the  records  of  the 
city  of  Springfield  respecting  some  of  the  matters  alleged  in  the  10th  article. 
Judge  Botkin  called  and  examined  in  his  defense  64  witnesses  out  of  98  sub- 
penaed  by  him.  The  testimony  occupies  over  800  pages  of  the  official  report 
of  the  trial,  pretty  near  evenly  divided  between  the  State  and  the  respondent. 
It  is  impossible  to  either  state  or  condense  this  testimony  within  the  compass 
allowed  for  this  chapter. 

Mr.  Wm.  P.  Hackney  Appears. — An  important  feature  in  this  impeach- 
ment trial  was  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Wm.  P.  Hackney,  of  Cowley  county. 
The  Senate  met  as  a court  on  the  20th  of  April.  Judge  Botkin  appeared  with 
his  five  attorneys,  Messrs.  Bradford,  Haun,  Hanback,  Hutchison,  and  Pitzer. 
The  next  day  Judge  Botkin  announced  in  writing  that  he  was  “absolutely  un- 
able to  employ  counsel,”  etc.,  and  the  Senate  made  the  absurd  and  void  order 
of  appointing  for  him  the  same  five  attorneys  who  had  already  been  an- 
nounced and  entered  as  attorneys  for  Judge  Botkin.  The  demurer  had  been 
filed,  argued  by  Judge  Botkin’s  attorneys,  and  after  decision  thereon  the  tak- 
ing of  testimony  commenced  on  April  29th.  Five  witnesses  had  testified,  and 
had  been  cross-examined  by  General  Bradford,  counsel  for  Judge  Botkin,  and 
the  sixth  witness  was  being  examined,  when  on  April  30th  (record  p.  362)  the 
following  occurred: 

Mr.  Bradford:  Mr.  President,  I ask  that  the  name  of  the  Hon.  W.  P.  Hack- 
ney be  recorded  as  representing  the  respondent,  and  he  will  proceed  to  exam- 
ine this  witness  on  cross-examination. 

The  Senate  voted  to  grant  this  request,  and  Mr,  Wm.  P.  Hackney  forthwith 


226 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


took  charge  of  Judge  Botkin’s  defense;  and  from  that  time  to  the  taking  of 
the  final  vote  was  in  the  fore-front,  managing  the  defense  before  the  Senate, 
and  working  for  Botkin’s  acquittal  in  every  possible  way.  Mr.  Hackney  is 
the  person  to  whom  $4,000  of  the  $5,250,  of  which  the  city  of  Springfield  was 
robbed,  was  paid.  He  is  the  man  who  was  recommended  to  members  of  the 
city  council  by  Judge  Botkin  (Impeachment  Trial,  p.  464)  in  the  following 
terms: 

“Whatever  Hackney  tells  the  boys  to  do,  go  ahead  and  do  it,  for  he  won’t 
lead  you  into  any  trouble.” 

This  was  said  on  the  morning  on  which  the  council-meeting  was  held, 
and  voted  Hackney  $4,000,  which  Botkin  ordered  his  receiver  to  pay,  and 
which  was  paid  that  same  night  — and  for  which  Hackney  never  did  an  hour’s 
work.  Why  was  Hackney’s  presence  before  the  Senate  rendered  necessary 
after  the  court  had  been  in  session  ten  days,  and  not  before?  What  were 
those  five  attorneys,  first  employed  by  Botkin,  and  afterward  appointed  by 
the  Senate  to  guard  and  protect  his  interest,  doing?  What  influences  were 
required  to  mould  that  partisan  Senate  so  as  to  secure  Botkin’s  acquittal? 
Mr.  Hackney  had  been  frequently  a member  of  the  House  and  also  of  the 
Senate.  He  was  a loud-mouthed  and  noisy  Republican.  He  had  done  a great 
deal  of  that  kind  of  political  work  which  is  supposed  to  place  ambitious  men 
“under  obligations.”  As  a noisy  howler  and  political  worker  he  was  a 
man  to  be  courted  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  be  feared  on  the  other.  Again, 
he  was  a party  to  the  robbery  of  the  city  of  Springfield,  and  whether  he  kept 
all  the  swag  that  came  to  his  hands,  or  divided  it  with  Botkin,  the  trial  and 
conviction  of  Botkin  for  that  robbery  was  the  trial  and  conviction  of  Hackney 
as  well.  So  he  came  — to  make  a defense  for  Botkin  and  himself.  His  con- 
spicuous management  of  that  defense,  and  his  idea  of  making  it  according  to 
the  needs  of  the  Hackney-Botkin  combination,  appears  in  the  fact  that  after 
his  arrival  on  the  scene  he  cross-examined  39  out  of  45  witnesses  called  by  the 
State,  and  examined  in  chief  60  out  of  the  64  witnesses  called  for  the  defense, 
and  not  being  satisfied  with  the  defense  so  far  made,  he  offered  himself  as  a 
witness,  and  testified  for  Botkin  and  himself  with  reference  to  the  Springfield 
robbery  transaction.  Never  was  a more  desperate  defense  made,  nor  more 
desperate  means  used  to  shield  an  unworthy  and  disgraceful  public  officer, 
and  to  gloss  over  wicked,  corrupt,  and  illegal  acts,  than  is  shown  in  the  Bot- 
kin trial. 

Facts  Pboven. — A large  number  of  witnesses — public  officers,  attorneys, 
business  men,  farmers,  and  others  having  business  upon  the  courts  held  in 
Judge  Botkin’s  district — testified  that  they  had  seen  Judge  Botkin  drunk  in 
the  year  1890,  and  January,  1891.  Among  those  who  so  testified  were  the  fol- 
lowing: T.  W,  Marshall,  county  attorney,  F.  B,  Brown,  county  superinten- 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL . 


227 


dent,  J.  B.  Moore,  farmer,  S.  M.  Alexander,  register  of  deeds,  D.  S.  Fleming, 
Rev.  A.  Ewen,  and  H.  N.  Wixon,  merchant,  all  of  Grant  county;  Alvin  Camp- 
bell and  Milton  Brown,  attorneys,  of  Garden  City;  Dr.  J.  A.  L.  Williams  and 
Dr.  J.  H.  B.  Adams,  former  residents  of  the  city  of  Springfield;  T.  B.  Reeve 
and  A.  L.  Davis,  farmers,  of  Seward  county;  H.  F.  Millikan,  register  of 
deeds,  John  C.  Buster,  sheriff,  J.  R.  Field,  farmer,  and  John  J.  Miller,  pub- 
lisher of  the  Santa  Fe  Monitor , all  of  Haskell  county;  I.  N.  Bunting,  editor, 
and  S.  N.  Wheeler,  attorney,  formerly  of  Morton  county;  J.  A.  Wemple,  W.  E. 
Ralstin,  H.  F.  Thompson,  editor,  S.  A.  Klein,  postmaster  and  merchant,  Mar- 
cus L.  Trout,  justice  of  the  peace,  J.  F.  Van  Yoorhis,  chairman  of  Republi- 
can county  central  committee,  W.  S.  Allen,  carpenter  and  machinist,  and 
Joseph  Waggoner,  mayor,  all  of  the  city  of  Springfield;  P.  P.  Hillerman,  at- 
torney, G.  G.  Leighton,  Henry  Shortman,  and  E.  M.  Murray,  ex-city  council- 
men,  and  John  W.  Tice,  all  former  residents  of  the  city  of  Springfield;  J.  K. 
Beauchamp,  county  attorney  of  Seward  county;  T.  E.  Dempsey,  attorney  of 
Greensburg;  Wm.  C.  Montgomery,  member  of  council  of  Johnson  City,  Stan- 
ton county;  and  Samuel  N.  Wood,  editor  of  the  Woodsdale  Sentinel , Stevens 
county.  All  the  above-named  persons  testified  that  they  had  seen  Judge  Bot- 
kin drunk , some  of  them  many  times,  and  each  fixed  the  time  and  place.  Sev- 
eral other  witnesses,  among  them  L.  C.  Cash  and  J.  W.  Maddox,  testified  to 
having  seen  Judge  Botkin  drink  whisky  on  several  occasions. 

That  Judge  Botkin  was  either  drunk,  or  the  most  dangerous  man  who  ever 
sat  on  the  bench,  is  shown  by  the  testimony  of  several  witnesses.  The  record 
of  his  trial  shows  that  at  the  January  term,  1890,  of  the  Seward  district  court, 
held  in  Springfield,  one  E.  M.  Moon  was  on  trial  upon  the  criminal  charge  of 
cattle  stealing;  that  during  the  trial  Botkin  and  Moon  were  frequently  seen 
drinking  whisky  together,  and  that  Moon  was  seen  to  be  treating  some  of  the 
jurors  impaneled  in  his  case.  A few  questions  and  answers  from  the  testi- 
mony of  T.  B.  Reeve  (page  319)  are  worthy  of  note: 

Q.  State  if  you  saw  the  Judge  and  Moon  drinking  together  at  any  time  dur- 
ing that  day.  A.  I did. 

Q.  Just  state  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  it.  A.  I saw  them  [Moon 
and  Botkin]  behind  the  court-house.  Moon  says,  “We’ll  have  something  to 
drink  if  we  chip  in ;”  and  I chipped  in,  and  he  went  and  got  what  I suppose 
to  be  a quart,  and  we  went  behind  the  court-house.  I took  the  first  drink,  and 
then  Moon  and  the  Judge  drank  the  balance. 

Q.  A quart  of  what?  A.  A quart  of  whisky. 

Q.  What  time  was  this-?  A.  This  was  when  they  adjourned  for  noon. 

Q.  State  whether  Moon’s  trial  was  in  progress  then.  A.  It  was. 

Q.  Did  you  drink  any  more  whisky  with  him?  A.  Yes,  sir;  Moon  says, 
“That  is  not  enough,  we  must  have  some  more  ;”  and  he  went  and  got  what  I 
suppose  to  be  a pint;  it  looked  about  that  size.  And  they  drank  it. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  Judge  and  Moon  together  any  more  during  that  dayf* 
A.  Yes,  sir;  after  court  adjourned  for  supper, 


228 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Q.  Where  did  you  see  them?  A.  We  were  around  the  drug  store. 

Q.  What  conversation  did  you  hear  at  noon?  A.  Why,  Moon,  says  he,  “I 
am  afraid  of  some  of  them  jurymen,  Judge.”  The  Judge  said,  “You  needn’t 
be  uneasy  about  that  — I am  judge  of  this  district,  Moon;  you  are  all  right.” 

And  here  is  what  J.  R.  Fields,  another  witness,  who  was  present  at  the  Moon 
trial,  says.  First  stating  that  he  had  seen  Judge  Botkin  drink  whisky  at  that 
January  term,  and  during  the  pendency  of  the  Moon  trial,  he  then  testified 
(pages  554  and  555)  as  follows: 

Q.  State  what  took  place.  A.  Well,  sir,  we  went  round  behind  the  court- 
room, and  Mr.  Moon  had  a bottle  of  liquor  in  his  pocket,  and  he  took  it  out 
and  reached  it  out  to  the  Judge,  and  the  Judge  took  a drink  out  of  it  and 
handed  it  back  to  Mr.  Moon,  and  Moon  passed  it  over  to  me.  ^ gj, 

Q.  Was  there  any  conversation  between  Judge  Botkin  and  Mr.  Moon?  A. 
There  was,  sir.  . . . Well,  Ed.  Moon  said  to  Judge  Botkin,  he  said,  “Judge, 

what  do  you  think  the  jury  will  do  with  me?”  And  the  Judge  replied,  “It 
doesn’t  make  a damned  bit  of  difference  what  the  jury  does,  I will  clear  you 
anyway.” 

Q.  Was  that  all?  A.  That  is  all  Mr.  Botkin  said  to  Mr.  Moon,  except  he 
said,  “Fow  get  to  the  jury  and  give  them  some.” 

Q.  What  was  Judge  Botkin’s  condition  at  that  time  so  far  as  sobriety  was 
concerned?  A.  Oh,  I don’t  think  the  Judge  was  so  awful  drunk. 

This  testimony  was  not  contradicted.  Judge  Botkin  was  present  and  heard 
both  Mr.  Beeve  and  Mr.  Fields  testify,  and  he  dared  not  contradict  them.  Here 
was  a man  on  trial  before  Judge  Botkin  charged  with  a penitentiary  offense, 
drinking  whisky  with  the  Judge,  and  advised  by  the  Judge  to  give  whisky  to 
the  jury,  and  profanely  telling  the  criminal  before  him  that  it  made  “no  dif- 
ference” what  the  jury  might  do,  that  he,  the  Judge fytoxAd  clear  him  anyway. 

□ Nothing  but  a partisan  Republican  Senate,  looking  farther  than  Judge  Botkin 
and  seeing  somebody  else  in  peril,  could  ever  have  voted  that  Botkin  was  “not 
guilty.” 

It  will  be  remembered  that  article  four  charged  that  Judge  Botkin, 'in  Au- 
gust, 1890,  “on  the  streets  and  in  public  places  in  the  city  of  Leoti,  in  Wichita 
county,  was  drunk  and  under  the  influence  of  intoxicating  liquors,  and  was 
engaged  in  a drunken  and  boisterous  quarrel  on  said  streets  and  in  said  pub- 
lic places,  and  was  then  and  there  so  disorderly  that  he  had  to  be  taken  off 
said  streets  by  the  sheriff  to  prevent  a further  disturbance  of  the  peace,”  and 
that  the  Senate  sustained  the  demurrer  to  this  article,  holding  that  it  was 
no  impeachable  offense  for'a”  district  judge  to  be  and  become  a drunken  fool 
and  debauchee  outside  of  his  judicial  district.  At  a later  day,  the  Board  of 
Managers  called  Col.  Emmett  Callahan,  a prominent  Republican  attorney  of 
Sedgwick  county,  and  asked  him  to  tell  about  Judge  Botkin’s  being  drunk  at 
Wichita  during  the  political  campaign  of  189Q,  and  at  a time  when  Botkin 
had  been  billed  for  a speech  at  a Republican  meeting  at  Wichita.  Botkin’s 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


229 


counsel  objected,  because  the  alleged  drunkenness  occurred  outside  of  Botkin's 
judicial  district.  After  a good  deal  of  discussion  (Impeachment  Trial,  pp. 
512-520),  the  following  appears: 

Me.  Webb:  I heard  General  Bradford’s  statement,  and  I propose  to  make 
my  offer  in  my  own  way,  unless  the  Senate  says  I shall  not.  The  State  now 
offers  to  prove  by  the  witness  on  the  stand,  and  by  other  witnesses  whom  we 
shall  place  on  the  stand,  that  the  respondent  was  drunk  in  the  city  of  Wichita 
in  August,  1890,  and  in  the  months  of  August,  September  and  October  of  the 
year  1890;  that  he  was  drunk  at  Dodge  City,  and  Anthony,  and  Garden  City, 
and  at  several  other  places  in  the  State  outside  of  his  judicial  district;  and  all 
within  a period  of  about  four  months;  and  all  in  support  of  article  seven. 

Article  seven  charged  that  Judge  Botkin  “had  been  an  habitual  user  of  in- 
toxicating liquors  to  such  excess  as  to  incapacitate  him  for  a clear-minded 
discharge  of  his  judicial  functions.”  The  Board  of  Managers  did  not  see  why 
beastly  drunkenness,  outside  of  Botkin’s  district,  oft  repeated,  did  not  tend 
to  prove  the  seventh  article  as  much  as  like  drunkenness  at  home.  But  an 
over-wise  Republican  Senate,  adhering  to  its  absurd  decision  made  in  sustain- 
ing the  demurrer  to  the  fourth  article,  by  a vote  of  yeas  12,  nays  14,  (less  than 
a quorum  voting,)  refused  to  permit  Col.  Callahan,  or  any  other  witness,  to 
testify  to  the  facts  embraced  in  Mr.  Webb’s  offer.  These  fourteen  Senators 
who  voted  in  the  negative  were:  Bentley,  Buchan,  Howard,  Johnson,  Kelly  of 
McPherson,  Lockard,  Murdock,  Osborn,  Richter,  Roe,  Schilling,  Senior, 
Tucker,  and  Wright.  (Impeachment  Trial,  page  524.) 

But  before  leaving  the  question  of  Judge  Botkin’s  drunkenness,  and  con- 
stant use  of  intoxicating  liquors,  it  is  well  to  remember  what  his  own  wit- 
nesses testified  to.  Here  is  what  the  men  said  who  were  called  before  the 
Senate  by  Judge  Botkin  to  vindicate  his  character  for  sobriety.  In  all  cases 
it  appeared  that  the  “drink”  of  which  Judge  Botkin  partook  was  some  kind 
of  an  intoxicant:  H.  E.  Evans  drank  with  the  Judge;  Peter  Bowers  drank 
with  the  Judge;  J.  W.  Gordon  saw  him  drink  whisky;  J.  B.  Palmer  mixed  hot 
water  and  lemon  with  whisky  for  him;  W.  E.  Hutchison  saw  him  drink  whisky 
on  the  road  to  Shockey’s,  and  also  in  Topeka;  J.  A.  Buckles  drank  whisky 
with  the  Judge;  Silsby  Stevens  drank  with  the  Judge;  W.  F.  Collins  and  W. 
H.  Buckles  drank  liquor  with  him  in  Seward  county;  L.  A.  Etzold  drank  liquor 
with  the  Judge  in  the  Arkalon  joint,  the  Judge  buying  the  liquor;  G.  S.  Stein 
saw  him  drink  in  the  Arkalon  joint;  E.  M.  Campbell  drank  frequently  with 
the  Judge;  W.  R.  Henline  crawled  into  the  back  window  of  the  joint  with  the 
Judge,  and  drank  whisky  with  him;  T.  A.  Scates  saw  the  Judge  drink  whisky; 
E.  R.  Ragland  and  A.  T.  Ragland  drank  whisky  with  the  Judge;  J.  H.  Pitzer 
drank  whisky  in  the  joint  with  the  Judge;  F.  E.  Griffith  drank  whisky  in  the 
joint  with  the  Judge;  Mr.  Hannan  drank  whisky  with  the  Judge.  Mr.  Hack- 
ney testified  that  everywhere  he  and  Judge  Botkin  were,  there  was  always 
—14 


230 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


plenty  of  liquors  to  drink,  and  it  was  freely  drunk.  J.  F.  Gray  drank  whisky 
with  the  Judge;  Joseph  Rosenthal  drank  whisky  with  the  Judge,  and  testified 
that  while  his  forgery  case  — Rosenthal  being  charged  with  forgery  — was 
pending  before  the  Judge,  that  the  Judge  drank  whisky  several  times  with 
him.  J.  A.  Miller  saw  the  Judge  drink  whisky,  peppermint,  paregoric  and  cap- 
sicum on  several  occasions;  and  D.  P.  Johnson,  the  county  commissioner, 
drank  whisky  with  the  Judge,  and  carried  it  to  him.  This  man  was  put  on 
the  stand  by  Hackney  to  testify  to  the  wonderfully  temperate  habits  of  this 
judge,  and  he  testified  that  he  had  actually  got  up  early  in  the  morning  and  car- 
ried whisky  to  the  Judge  before  he  had  opened  his  eyes.  Frank  Weir  drank 
whisky  with  the  Judge;  J.  E.  Kelley  drank  whisky  with  the  Judge;  W.  L.  Walker 
drank  whisky  with  the  Judge;  Thomas  Cooper  drank  whisky  with  the  Judge; 
J.  C.  Kilburn  drank  whisky  with  the  Judge;  G.  H.  Neumeyer  drank  whisky 
with  the  Judge;  and  G.  D.  Sloan  drank  reduced  alcohol  with  him.  And  Mrs. 
Palmer,  wife  of  the  landlord  of  the  “Hotel  Hoisington,”  at  Ulysses,  found  two 
whisky  bottles  in  Judge  Botkin’s  bed  at  said  hotel  at  the  April  term  of  court, 
1890.  And  all  these  persons  were  witnesses  for  Judge  Botkin  at  his  trial  on 
impeachment  before  the  Senate. 

The  testimony  overwhelmingly  sustained  the  first,  second,  third  and  seventh 
articles,  all  relating  to  drunkenness  by  Judge  Botkin.  It  also  sustained  the 
fifth  and  sixth  articles,  but  as  the  demurrer  had  been  sustained  as  to  them,  no 
vote  was  taken  on  them.  Nor  was  any  vote  taken  upon  the  fourth  article  for 
the  same  reason,  and  the  Senate  refused  to  listen  to  any  evidence  proving 
Judge  Botkin’s  drunkenness  and  debauchery  in  Wichita  county,  which  was 
outside  of  his  judicial  district.  On  the  first,  second  and  third  articles,  respect- 
ively, thirty-five  Senators  voted  “not  guilty;”  four  Senators,  Buchan,  John- 
son, Kirkpatrick,  and  Martin,  were  absent.  (It  will  be  remembered  that  Mr. 
Wilson,  of  the  Fortieth  District,  had  resigned.) 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  “demurrer,”  admitting  the  truth  of  these 
first,  second  and  third  articles,  was  overruled.  The  four  Senators  who  were 
absent  on  the  final  vote  were  also  all  absent  when  the  vote  on  the  demurrer 
was  taken.  On  the  first  article,  23  Senators  voted  to  overrule  the  demurrer, 
holding  that  the  article  was  good.  These  same  23  Senators  voted  “ not  guilty  ” 
after  hearing  the  evidence  — a most  marvelous  change  of  sentiment!  The 
demurrer  admitted  the  truth  of  the  charge,  the  evidence  proved  the  absolute 
truth  of  the  charge,  yet  23  Senators  practically  changed  their  views  with  their 
votes,  or  they  could  not  have  voted  “not  guilty.”  On  the  second  article,  22 
Senators  voted  to  override  the  demurrer.  These  same  22  Senators  voted  “not 
guilty”  after  hearing  the  evidence.  On  the  third  article,  32  Senators  voted 
to  overrule  the  demurrer;  and  these  same  32  Senators  voted  “not  guilty”  after 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


231 


hearing  the  evidence.  In  each  case  the  change  is  as  wonderful  and  unaccount- 
able as  that  respecting  the  first  article. 

The  seventh  article  practically  charged  that  J udge  Botkin  had  become  so 
besotted  as  to  be  incapable  of  properly  performing  the  judicial  functions  of 
his  office.  On  this  article  the  vote  was  — 

Guilty  — Senators  Harkness,  Hays,  King,  Long,  McTaggart,  Rankin,  Rush, 
and  Wheeler  — 8. 

Not  Guilty  — 26.  Absent , 4;  and  Senator  Kimball  excused  from  voting. 

The  only  Senator  who  explained  his  vote  on  the  seventh  article  was  Sena- 
tor Harkness,  of  Clay  county.  His  understanding  of  the  testimony  and  its 
effect  as  evidence  is  so  clear,  and  his  reasons  are  so  cogent,  that  they  should 
be  pondered  by  everybody.  (Impeachment  Trial,  pp.  1384  and  1385.) 

Senator  Harkness:  . . . It  is  charged  that  the  respondent  has  been  an 

habitual  user  of  intoxicating  liquors,  and  it  occurs  to  me,  sitting  as  one  of 
the  triers  in  this  case,  that  this  charge  has  been  conclusively  established  by 
the  evidence.  Of  the  vast  number  of  witnesses  that  have  been  placed  upon 
the  stand  during  this  trial,  there  are  very  few  who  have  not  testified  to  the 
habits  of  the  respondent  with  reference  to  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors. 
Witnesses  for  the  State  and  witnesses  for  the  respondent  testify  to  his  con- 
stant use  of  liquors.  Proof  has  been  introduced  as  to  his  habits  in  this  re- 
spect throughout  his  district,  during  the  time  when  court  was  in  session,  and 
at  various  other  times;  and  I can  only  ascribe  his  conduct  in  these  later  years, 
as  shown  by  the  evidence  in  this  case,  to  his  habits  and  indulgence  to  excess 
in  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors.  His  obscenity,  his  profanity,  his  conduct 
upon  the  bench,  as  testified  to  by  many  witnesses,  were  not  dictated  by  the 
noble  heart  and  the  generous  nature  of  Theodosius  Botkin,  the  soldier  boy; 
but  I can  ascribe  these  things  only  to  the  feverish  brain  and  abnormal  con- 
dition occasioned  by  the  habits  he  has  formed  in  later  years.  Charity,  as 
well  as  my  deliberate  judgment,  leads  me  to  believe  that  the  unlawful,  oppress- 
ive and  inexcusable  acts,  concerning  which  evidence  has  been  introduced,  in 
many  instances  were  due  to  that  unfortunate  habit,  and  the  physical  and 
mental  condition  resulting  therefrom;  that  many  of  the  things  charged 
against  him  would  never  have  occurred  but  for  the  fact  that  he  had,  by  the 
constant  and  excessive  use  of  liquors,  incapacitated  himself  for  a clear- 
minded  discharge  of  his  duties. 

Here  is  a prominent  Republican  Senator  frankly  confessing  that  every 
claim  made  by  the  State,  respecting  Judge  Botkin’s  unfitness  for  the  bench 
by  reason  of  his  continuous  drunkenness,  was  fully  proven;  and  yet  Senators 
Bentley,  Berry,  Emery,  Gillett,  Kelley  of  Crawford,  Kelly  of  McPherson,  Lock- 
ard,  Mechem,  Moody,  Murdock,  Osborn,  Richter,  Roe,  Schilling,  and  Wright, 
who  had  voted  to  overrule  the  demurrer  to  this  same  seventh  article,  having 
heard  this  same  testimony  which  Senator  Harkness  so  clearly  presents  as 
conclusively  proving  the  article,  changed  sides  and  voted  “not  guilty.”  Let 
the  people  remember  these  matters. 

The  eighth  article  charges  that  Judge  Botkin  was  guilty  of  most  terrible 


232 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


and  shocking  blasphemy.  It  is  sufficient  to  quote  from  the  testimony  of  two 
witnesses  respecting  this  charge: 

H.  F.  Millikan,  register  of  deeds  of  Haskell  county  (Impeachment  Trial, 
p.  337 ),  testified  that  he  had  known  Judge  Botkin  for  more  than  three  years; 
that  at  Santa  Fe,  in  Haskell  county,  in  July,  1890,  he  saw  Judge  Botkin  “come 
out  of  a place  where  it  is  reported  that  whisky  is  sold  — come  out  on  the  cor- 
ner of  the  public  street,  and  the  first  thing  that  I heard  him  say,  there  was  a 
lot  of  ‘God-damned  sons-of-bitches  in  this  town  who  have’nt  got  any  more 
sense  than  jackasses,  and  every  one  ought  to  be  killed,’  and  went  on  at  a ter- 
rible rate.  I know  he  said  those  words.” 

And  at  page  338  Mr.  Millikan  testified  that  in  January,  1891,  he  attended 
the  court  at  Springfield,  in  Seward  county;  that  on  that  occasion  he  saw  Judge 
Botkin  in  Shortman  <fe  Tice’s  drug  store;  that  he  (Botkin)  came  out  from  be- 
hind the  prescription  case;  . . . “in  the  course  of  time  he  was  talking  to 

some  one  near  the  door,  and  I was  further  back  in  the  room;  and  I heard  him 
say  that  ‘God  Almighty  was  a God-damned  fool.’  That  is  what  attracted  my 
attention  — the  remark  came  so  strangely.” 

John  C.  Buster,  another  witness,  was  at  Springfield  at  the  same  time,  and 
was  also  at  the  drug  store.  He  testified  that  he  saw  Judge  Botkin  there,  be- 
hind the  prescription  case;  “I  heard  him  talking  around  there  to  a man  in 
front.  They  were  Seward  county  men;  and  he  came  around  the  prescription 
case  and  made  the  remark  that  ‘God  Almighty  was  a God-damned  fool;’  and 
. . . it  stunned  me  when  he  said  it.” 

The  only  attempt  made  to  avoid  the  effect  of  this  evidence  by  Judge  Bot- 
kin was  to  get  two  or  three  witnesses  to  testify  that  they  were  at  the  drug 
store,  and  that  they  “didn’t  hear  Judge  Botkin  use  the  language  attributed  to 
him.”  Judge  Botkin  had  ample  opportunity  to  deny  it,  and  he  did  not  offer 
to  do  so!  But  as  further  proof  of  Judge  Botkin’s  habitual  use  of  profane 
language  on  and  off  the  bench,  we  quote  from  the  testimony  of  Rev.  J.  Ay- 
Irons,  a minister  who  was  called  by  Judge  Botkin  to  prove  a good  character 
for  the  Judge.  On  cross-examination  Mr.  Irons  was  asked  what  Judge  Bot- 
kin said  while  holding  court  in  Haskell  county  on  a particular  occasion,  and 
this  was  the  answer  (page  868): 

“I  think  the  Judge  says:  ‘I  will  have  the  boys  to  understand  whenever  it 
comes  within  my  power  from  now  on,  or  whenever  it  is  possible  for  me  from 
now  on  to  appoint  a receiver  to  close  out  these  town  companies  and  corpora- 
tions that  have  been  a curse  to  this  country,  I will  do  it,  I don’t  care  if  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  President;’  to  which  I said  ‘Amen!’” 

If  human  testimony  ever  proved  a solitary  fact,  then  the  charge  contained 
in  the  eighth  article  was  conclusively  proved.  And  yet  only  four  Senators  — 
Messrs.  Hays,  McTaggart,  Rush,  and  Wheeler  — voted  “guilty.”  Thirty  Sen- 
ators voted  “not  guilty,”  and  Senator  Kimball  was  excused  from  voting.  If 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


233 


blasphemy  in  a district  judge,  and  if  the  terribly  wicked  and  shocking  pro- 
fanity and  blasphemy,  conclusively  shown  to  be  a common  practice  with 
Judge  Botkin,  is  not  an  “impeachable  offense,”  then  times  have  changed  very 
greatly.  Blasphemy  is  spoken  of  by  law-writers  and  courts  as  a “crime.” 
It  was  a crime  at  common  law.  It  was  and  is  punishable  as  a crime  in  almost 
all  European  countries,  and  in  nearly  all  of  the  United  States,  and  the  Sen- 
ate, in  passing  upon  the  demurrer  to  other  articles  in  this  same  case,  deter- 
mined that  a “ misdemeanor,”  to  be  impeachable  in  this  State,  need  not  be 
an  offense  punishable  by  statute.  Then  why  was  not  the  eighth  article  sus- 
tained by  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  Kansas?  Have  the  members  of  that  body 
become  so  addicted  to  profanity  that  they  no  longer  regard  it  as  an  offense 
against  public  morals  and  public  decency?  or  was  his  acquittal  on  this  article  a 
part  of  the  partisan  program  necessary  to  save  others  by  saving  J udge  Botkin  ? 

The  ninth  article  charges  that  Judge  Botkin  had  been  guilty  of  willful  and 
oppressive  conduct  in  office,  and  specified  that  he  had  illegally,  maliciously 
and  oppressively  caused  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  four  free  American 
citizens.  The  evidence  shows,  and  Judge  Botkin  nor  his  attorneys  did  not  even 
make  any  pretense  of  denial,  that  on  the  7th  day  of  January,  1891,  Judge  Bot- 
kin issued  an  order  for  the  arrest  of  John  R.  Garrison  and  J.  F.  Van  Yoorhis, 
which  order  was  as  follows: 

“ In  the  District  Court  of  Seward  County,  Kansas. 

“ The  State  of  Kansas  to  the  Sheriff  of  Seward  County , Kansas:  Whereas,  it 
comes  to  the  personal  knowledge  of  the  judge  of  this  court  that  one  John  R. 
Garrison  and  J.  F.  Van  Yoorhis  are  circulating  certain  scurrilous  papers 
against  this  court  and  against  the  judge  of  this  court,  and  are  accusing  the 
judge  of  this  court  of  being  incompetent,  and  of  being  a drunkard,  and  of 
being  a robber,  a thief,  a boodler,  and  an  aider  and  abettor  of  robbers  and 
thieves: 

“Now,  therefore,  this  is  to  command  you  that  you  forthwith  apprehend,  at- 
tach and  arrest  the  said  John  R.  Garrison  and  the  said  J.  F.  Yan  Voorhis,  and 
bring  them  and  each  of  them  forthwith  before  this  court  to  answer  the  charge 
of  contempt  of  court  for  said  conduct;  and  hereof  fail  not,  under  penalty. 
By  order  of  the  court.  [Seal..]  Theo.  Botkin,  Judge.” 

The  recital  in  this  illegal  order,  that  it  was  within  the  “personal  knowl- 
edge” of  Judge  Botkin  that  Garrison  and  Yan  Voorhis  were,  or  had  been,  cir- 
culating the  papers  of  the  character  mentioned,  was  absolutely  false.  No 
attempt  was  made  by  or  for  Judge  Botkin  to  prove  that  it  was  true.  It  was 
conceded  that  the  papers  referred  to  were  the  petitions  to  the  Legislature  for 
the  impeachment  or  removal  of  Judge  Botkin  from  office,  of  which  several 
were  presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  6th  and  13th  of  Feb- 
ruary last,  and  which  will  be  found  at  pages  14  and  1355  of  the  Impeachment 
Trial;  and  not  only  this,  but  both  Garrison  and  Van  Voorhis  testified  abso- 
lutely that  they  had  not  only  not  circulated  any  such  papers  relating  to  the 


234 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


respondent,  nor  any  petition  or  papers  of  any  kind  at  that  time,  but  had  not 
even  seen  the  paper  referred  to  in  the  order  issued  for  their  arrest.  No  at- 
tempt was  made  by  Judge  Botkin  to  contradict  their  testimony  in  this  respect. 
But  if  Van  Voorhis  and  Garrison,  or  any  other  person  or  persons  had  circu- 
lated that,  or  any  other  petition  or  paper,  they  were  not  guilty  of  any  actual 
or  constructive  contempt  of  court.  Such  a proceeding  is  privileged,  being 
one  of  the  personal  rights  of  the  citizen  guaranteed  by  the  bill  of  rights  in 
our  constitution,  as  follows: 

“Sec.  3.  The  people  have  the  right  to  assemble  in  a peaceable  manner,  to 
consult  for  their  common  good,  to  instruct  their  representatives,  and  to  peti- 
tion  the  government , or  any  department  thereof , for  the  redress  of  grievances.” 

The  people  of  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  the  people  of  any  county, 
any  city,  or  any  township  in  that  district,  or  any  of  the  people  therein,  had 
the  absolute  right  to  write,  print,  circulate,  sign,  and  present  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  the  petition  which  so  wounded  the  tender  sensibilities  of 
Judge  Botkin  that  he  proceeded  at  once  to  deliberately  violate  the  constitu- 
tion, trample  upon  the  law,  and  outrage  the' rights  of  two  American  citizens 
by  ordering  them  to  be  arrested  and  imprisoned  upon  a false  and  groundless 
charge. 

The  State  also  proved,  under  the  9th  article,  that  Judge  Botkin,  on  the  13th 
of  January,  1891,  wickedly  and  maliciously  issued  another  alleged  order,  or 
warrant,  for  the  arrest  of  H.  F.  Thompson  and  C.  L.  Galvert.  H.  F.  Thomp- 
son was  the  editor  and  publisher  of  the  Springfield  Republican,  the  official 
Republican  newspaper  of  Seward  county.  C.  L.  Calvert  had  formerly  been 
connected  with  the  same  paper.  Five  of  the  men  who  in  February  afterward 
petitioned  the  Legislature  for  the  removal  of  Judge  Botkin  were,  H.  F. 
Thompson,  C.  L.  Calvert,  J.  F.  Van  Voorhis,  S.  A.  Klein,  and  Wm.  E.  Ralstin, 
all  residents  of  Seward  county,  and  all  Republicans.  In  this  petition  (Im- 
peachment Trial,  p.  12,)  it  is  alleged  that  Judge  Botkin  said  to  William  E. 
Ralstin: 

“‘Billy,  there  are  about  a half-dozen  of  you  God  damned  sons-of-bitche3 
who  will  be  in  that  jail  before  6 o’clock  to-morrow  night.  I am  going  to  till 
those  steel  cages  full.’  . . . ‘ I am  after  a son-of-a-bitch  of  a preacher, 

and  I’ll  get  him,  too,’  having  reference  to  Rev.  J.  B.  Bradley,  an  estimable 
citizen  of  Seward  county.” 

This  same  Rev.  J.  B.  Bradley  wrote  an  article  which  was  published  as  edito- 
rial in  the  Springfield  Republican  of  9th  January,  1891.  The  following  is  a 
part  of  the  article: 

“A  spirit  of  inquiry  is  manifesting  itself,  not  only  in  Springfield  and  Sew- 
ard county,  but  throughout  the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District.  Many  in- 
teresting questions  are  constantly  before  the  mind  of  a large  number  of 
intelligent  people,  and  these  questions,  like  Banquo’s  ghost,  will  not  down  at 
the  bidding.  A few  of  these  may  be  noticed  here.  Is  there  any  authority  in 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL.  . 


235 


law  or  elsewhere  for  a judge  of  a district  court,  at  his  own  instance,  without 
complaint,  petition,  or  motion  on  the  part  of  anyone,  to  appoint  a receiver 
for  a city’s  funds  (amounting  to  more  than  $8,000),  and  thereby  taking  said 
money  into  the  custody  of  the  court  (said  receiver  was  an  officer  of  the  court), 
and,  while  the  money  was  subject  to  the  Order  of  the  judge  of  the  district 
court,  by  his  order  to  pay  out  $6,000,  not  to  persons  who  had  claims 
against  the  city,  but  to  persons  who  had  no  claims,  nor  even  a pretended 
claim  to  the  money?  Is  such  an  act  justifiable?  Can  it  be  tolerated?  Will 
a long-suffering  people  endure  it  in  silence?  Is  it  possible  that  the  authori- 
ties will  wink  at  such  official  conduct?” 

It  was  for  printing  this  article  that  Judge  Botkin  caused  H.  F.  Thompson  and 
C.  L.  Calvert  to  be  arrested.  The  complaint  made  and  filed  is  signed  “Theo. 
Botkin,  Judge,”  and  is  given  in  full  at  page  476  of  Impeachment  Trial.  It 
copies  several  extracts  from  the  editorial  above  mentioned,  and  recites  that 
Thompson  and  Calvert  published  said  article  in  reference  to  certain  orders  and 
judgments  “ made  by  this  court  in  a certain  case  then  and  now  pending  in  this 
court , in  which  the  State  of  Kansas,  on  the  relation  of  the  county  attorney,  is 
plaintiff,  and  G.  W.  Winn  et  al.  are  defendants.” 

This  recital  was  absolutely  false,  and  Judge  Botkin  knew  it.  The  case  re- 
ferred to  was  case  No.  543  — which  will  be  more  particularly  mentioned  when 
considering  article  10th  — and  that  action  was  finally  disposed  of  on  the  8th 
of  September,  1890;  (Impeachment  Trial,  p.  417.)  The  following  is  so  much 
of  the  journal  entry  of  September  8th  as  is  important  here: 

“The  State  of  Kansas  ex  rel.  J.  B.  Adams,  county  attorney,  etc.,  vs.  George 
W.  Winn,  mayor  of  the  city  of  Springfield,  et  al. — No.  543. — And  now  on  this 
day  this  cause  came  on  to  be  heard  in  open  court  upon  the  petition  of  the 
plaintiff  and  the  demurrer  of  the  defendants.  The  plaintiff  appeared  by 
Messrs.  Brown  & Ney,  and  the  defendants  by  Messrs.  Hackney,  Speed  & Asp, 
their  attorneys,  and  thereupon  the  plaintiff  moved  the  court  to  dissolve  the 
order  heretofore  made  in  this  cause  appointing  a receiver  herein,  and  to  dis- 
miss this  action , with  the  proper  order  of  allowance  to  the  receiver.  And  the 
court  being  fully  advised  in  the  premises,  is  of  the  opinion  that  said  motion 
ought  to  be  sustained.” 

And  the  action  was  dismissed  and  finally  ended  on  that  8th  day  of  Septem- 
ber, 1890,  more  than  four  months  before  Judge  Botkin  made  and  signed  the 
false  and  wicked  eomplaint  alleging  that  it  was  “still  pending”  in  court. 
The  Supreme  Court  had  long  ago  decided  that  “after  a case  or  action  has 
been  finally  disposed  of,  a court  or  judge  has  no  power  to  compel  the  public, 
or  any  individual  thereof,  attorney  or  otherwise,  to  consider  his  rulings  cor- 
rect, his  conduct  proper,  or  even  his  integrity  free  from  stain,  or  to  punish 
for  contempt  any  mere  criticism  or  animadversion  thereon,  no  matter  how 
severe  or  unjust.”  Judge  Botkin  must  therefore  have  subscribed  his  name 
to  the  falsehood  for  the  only  conceivable  purpose  of  getting  an  appearance 
of  jurisdiction,  and  throwing  two  American  citizens  into  jail  for  daring  to 


236 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


criticise  his  actions  in  the  matter  of  the  robbery  of  the  Springfield  treasury. 
He  had  no  more  right  to  send  those  men  to  jail  than  he  has  to  imprison  any 
State  Senator.  And  on  appeal  from  Botkin’s  order  of  arrest  and  imprison- 
ment, the  Supreme  Court  discharged  Thompson  and  Calvert,  holding  that 
their  arrest  was  illegal,  and  that  Botkin’s  acts  were  acts  of  usurpation  and 
oppression. 

But  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  arrest  of  Garrison  and  Van  Yoorhis 
was  made  by  order  of  Judge  Botkin  on  January  7th,  and  that  the  arrest  of 
Thompson  and  Calvert  was  made  on  January  13th.  The  one  was  a week 
before,  and  the  other  on  the  very  day  the  Legislature  met  in  regular  session. 
Garrison  and  Van  Yoorhis  were  arrested  upon  a charge  of  circulating  petitions 
to  the  Legislature  for  the  removal  from  office  of  J udge  Botkin,  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  “a  drunkard,  a robber,  a thief,  a boodler,  and  an  aider  and  abettor 
of  robbers  and  thieves.”  (See  Botkin’s  order,  Impeachment  Trial,  pages  24 
and  1354.)  Thompson  and  Calvert  were  arrested  upon  the  charge  of  having 
published  an  article  about  that  “boodler  robbery”  of  Springfield.  (See  Bot- 
kin’s complaint  and  order,  Impeachment  Trial,  pages  476,  477.)  The  object 
of  these  arrests  was  to  intimidate  not  only  the  four  citizens  arrested,  but  all 
other  persons,  and  thus  prevent  them  from  applying  to  the  Legislature,  in 
the  exercise  of  their  constitutional  rights,  for  relief  from  the  oppression  and 
tyranny  of  a drunken  and  corrupt  judge.  He  was  desperate,  and  resorted  to 
desperate  means.  His  intention  was,  as  he  declared,  to  “fill  the  iron  cages” 
of  the  jails  with  men  who  dared  assert  and  maintain  the  freeman’s  right  to 
speak  out  and  denounce  crime  and  drunkenness,  even  when  found  in  the  per- 
son of  a tyrannical  judge.  He  failed  in  his  wicked  and  malicious  purpose, 
in  part.  The  outraged  and  oppressed  citizens  of  his  district  did  petition  the 
Legislature  “for  a redress  of  their  grievances,”  and  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives heard  their  appeal,  and  did  its  part  toward  granting  the  needed  relief. 
It  was  left  for  enough  members  of  a partisan  Senate  to  close  their  ears,  and 
to  still  their  consciences  and  stultify  themselves,  and  to  misrepresent  the  peo- 
ple of  Kansas  and  outrage  the  high  character  of  the  State,  by  voting  to  acquit 
a man  who  was  confessedly  guilty  of  crimes  enough  to  consign  him  to  the 
penitentiary  for  a term  of  years.  But  be  it  said  to  the  credit  of  a majority 
of  the  Senators  present,  that  there  were  eighteen  votes  cast  to  convict  Judge 
Botkin  on  this  ninth  article.  The  vote  was  as  follows: 

Guilty  — Senators  Carroll  of  Miami,  Elliston,  Forney,  Harkness,  Hays, 
Howard,  Kimball,  King,  Long,  McTaggart,  Osborn,  Rankin,  Rush,  Senior, 
Smith,  Tucker,  Wheeler,  and  Woodward — 18. 

Not  Guilty  — Senators  Bentley,  Berry,  Emery,  Gillett,  Kelley  of  Crawford, 
Kelly  of  McPherson,  Lockard,  Mechem,  Mohler,  Moody,  Murdock,  Norton, 
Richter,  Roe,  Schilling,  and  Wright  — 16. 

Absent  — Senators  Buchan,  Johnson,  Kirkpatrick,  and  Martin  — 4. 

Not  Voting  — Carroll  of  Leavenworth  — 1. 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


237 


The  10th  article  related  to  the  robbery  of  the  city  of  Springfield.  The  ar- 
ticle is  of  great  length,  and  is  not  divided  into  “specifications.”  But  the  arti- 
cle clearly  presents  a series  of  illegal,  tyrannical  and  corrupt  acts  on  the  part 
of  Judge  Botkin,  all  relating  to  the  one  scheme  of  plundering  the  treasury  of 
the  city  of  Springfield.  (House  Journal,  pages  737  to  740;  Impeachment  Trial, 
pages  25  to  27,  and  pages  39  to  41.)  The  purpose  to  steal  the  moneys  be- 
longing to  the  city  apparently  had  its  origin  several  months  before  its  con- 
summation. The  city  of  Springfield  had  issued  a series  of  “Water-works 
Bonds,”  and  afterward  a lot  of  “ Refunding  Bonds.”  Some  of  these  bonds 
had  been  sold,  a portion  of  the  money  expended,  and  there  remained  some 
$8,000  in  the  city  treasury.  Whether  with  or  without  cause,  some  of  the  tax- 
payers expressed  the  opinion  that  the  “bonds  ” of  the  city  had  not  been  legally 
issued,  and  then  began  the  series  of  illegal  acts  on  the  part  of  Judge  Botkin 
which  are  complained  of  in  the  10th  article.  It  will  be  convenient  to  present 
these  illegal  acts  separately: 

1.  On  the  1st  of  March,  1890,  Judge  Botkin  issued  an  order  directed  to  the 
county  attorney  of  Seward  county,  reciting  among  other  matters,  that  “Sev- 
eral complaints  of  violations  of  the  criminal  laws  of  the  State  on  the  part  of 
the  city  officials  of  Springfield  having  come  to  my  notice  officially,  and  it  be- 
ing represented  to  me  that  you  neglect  and  refuse  to  institute  proceedings  to 
punish  the  alleged  offenders,  and  to  protect  the  civil  rights  and  interests  of 
the  tax-payers  of  said  city,”  and  commanding  said  county  attorney  to  “forth- 
with institute  such  proceedings  as  law  and  equity  may  require  in  the  premi- 
ses, or  show  cause  on  March  15,  1890,  why  your  office  should  not  be  declared 
vacant  and  a successor  appointed,  and  why  you  should  not  be  attached  for 
contempt.”  (See  Impeachment  Trial,  pages  437  and  1364.) 

This  “notice”  proves  conclusively  that  Judge  Botkin  is  either  grossly  ig- 
norant, or  that  he  knowingly  usurps  powers  he  never  possessed.  It  could  not 
come  to  his  “notice  officially”  that  the  criminal  laws  of  the  State  had  been 
violated,  except  by  legal  proceedings  actually  commenced  in  his  court  against 
the  supposed  criminals.  Nor  could  he  know,  officially  or  otherwise,  as  a judge, 
that  the  county  attorney  “had  neglected  or  refused”  to  perform  his  duty, 
unless  the  county  attorney  had  been  indicted  by  a grand  jury  in  his  court,  or 
unless  a criminal  complaint  had  been  made  and  filed  in  his  court  against  him 
(in  the  name  of  the  State  as  plaintiff)  for  such  neglect  of  duty,  or  unless  a 
proper  action  in  quo  warranto  had  been  brought  in  his  court  against  such 
county  attorney  to  remove  him  from  office  for  neglect  or  refusal  to  perform 
his  official  duty.  Nor  had  Judge  Botkin  any  legal  authority  to  “command” 
the  county  attorney  to  institute  proceedings,  either  criminal  or  civil,  in  his 
court  or  in  any  court,  such  as  stated  in  said  order;  and  he  never  had' the  legal 
right  to  command  or  require  any  county  attorney  to  “show  cause  why  his 


238 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


office  should  not  be  declared  vacant”  (as  shown  in  the  above-mentioned  order), 
nor  to  attach  such  officer  for  contempt  if  he  should  fail  to  “show  cause.”  In 
all  these  respects  Judge  Botkin  transcended  his  legal  authority.  He  was 
grossly  ignorant,  and  therefore  unfit  to  hold  the  office  of  judge,  or  he  was  a 
mendacious  and  dangerous  usurper,  trampling  upon  the  rights  alike  of  pri- 
vate citizens  and  public  officers. 

2.  In  obedience  to  that  illegal  order,  the  county  attorney  commenced  a civil 
proceeding  in  the  name  of  the  State  as  plaintiff  against  the  mayor  and  coun- 
cilmen  of  the  city  of  Springfield  and  certain  county  officers,  to  enjoin  and 
restrain  such  officers  from  levying  or  collecting  any  taxes  to  pay  certain  city 
indebtedness,  and  also,  to  forever  enjoin  J.  M.  Adams  (who  was  city  treasurer 
and  also  one  of  the  defendants)  from  — 

“Paying  out  or  turning  over  any  sum  or  sums  of  money  to  any  person  or 
persons  whomsoever  on  account  of  said  bonds,  interest  or  principal,  or  on  ac- 
count of  pretended  indebtedness  of  said  city  of  Springfield , made  or  pretended  to 
have  been  made  prior  to  October  5,  1889.” 

All  the  proceedings  had  and  taken  in  this  civil  action  appear  in  full  in  the 
Impeachment  Trial,  at  pages  413  to  420,  and  they  present  a record  of  high- 
handed robbery  and  plunder,  in  the  name  of  law,  scarcely  ever  equaled  in  in- 
famy anywhere.  This  action  and  the  papers  therein  bear  the  “No.  543.” 
Another  action  had  been  commenced  in  January,  1890,  by  J.  B.  Adams, 
county  attorney,*  against  the  mayor  and  councilmen  of  the  city  of  Spring- 
field — the  proceedings  in  which  are  printed  in  full  in  the  Impeachment  Trial, 
at  pages  409  to  412.  This  action  or  suit  is  numbered  “530.”  Suit  No.  530 
was  the  first  step  in  the  proceedings  to  rob  the  city  of  Springfield.  In  that 
suit  the  mayor  and  council  were,  on  the  25th  of  January,  “enjoined”  by  Judge 
Botkin  from  paying  out  any  of  the  city’s  money  for  certain  purposes  (page 
409),  but  it  is  a singular  feature  that  the  party  most  affected  by  that  injunc- 
tion was  not  a party  to  the  suit!  It  will  be  convenient  to  refer  to  the  two 
actions  mentioned  as  “No.  530”  and  “No.  543.”  A motion  to  “dissolve”  the 
injunction  in  No.  530  was  duly  made  in  March,  1890,  but  was  not  granted 
by  Judge  Botkin  until  the  27th  of  September,  which  was  after  the  robbery  of 
the  city  had  been  consummated.  (Pages  410,  412.)  The  injunction  prayed 
for  in  No.  543  was  granted  by  Judge  Botkin  on  the  3d  of  March,  and  was  not 
dissolved  until  the  8th  of  September,  which  was  after  the  robbery  of  the  city 
had  been  fully  accomplished.  By  means  of  the  two  civil  actions  and  two  in- 
junctions against  the  mayor  and  councilmen,  the  money  of  the  city  was  kept 
in  the  city  treasury.  It  was  necessary  to  get  hold  of  that  money,  and  so  the 

* In  examining  said  impeachment  trial  and  the  records  of  the  two  actions  mentioned  in  the 
text,  it  should  be  observed  and  remembered  that  there  were  two  Adamses  connected  with  those 
cases,  namely,  J.  B.  Adams,  county  attorney,  and  J.  J/.  Adams,  city  treasurer  of  the  city  of 
Springfield. 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


239 


county  attorney,  as  required  by  Judge  Botkin’s  order  above  quoted,  com- 
menced a criminal  prosecution  against  the  mayor,  a portion  of  the  council- 
men,  and  some  other  persons,  the  proceedings  in  which  prosecution  are  set 
forth  in  the  Impeachment  Trial  at  page  403.  This  was  commenced  on  17th 
June,  1890.  The  object  was  to  intimidate  the  city  officers  so  as  to  compel 
them  to  vote  the  city  money  to  Botkin’s  friends. 

3.  In  the  criminal  action  against  the  members  of  the  city  council,  Judge 
Botkin,  to  make  sure  that  the  main  purpose  should  not  fail,  acted  as  a justice 
of  the  peace,  or  an  “examining  magistrate” — a proceeding  wholly  unauthor- 
ized by  law.  A district  judge  who  assumes  to  act  and  sit  as  an  examining 
magistrate  usurps  powers  never  given  him,  and  never  intended  to  be  given 
him.  (This  feature  of  the  case  was  discussed  fully  during  the  trial;  pages 
219  to  221.) 

4.  On  the  17th  of  June,  the  same  day  that  Judge  Botkin  as  “an  examining 
magistrate”  required  the  defendants  in  the  criminal  case  to  give  bond,  and 
continued  the  hearing  until  June  27th,  he  (Botkin)  sitting  as  judge  of  the  dis- 
trict court  took  most  remarkable  action  in  civil  action  No.  543.  Two  of  the 
defendants  there  asked  “leave  to  answer”  the  petition,  showing  why  the  de- 
fendants should  not  be  enjoined  from  levying  proper  taxes  to  pay  off  the  city 
indebtedness,  and  why  the  defendants  should  not  be  enjoined  from  voting  as 
members  of  the  city  council  to  pay  any  proper  city  indebtedness.  This  leave 
to  answer  was  granted;  but  in  the  same  order,  ( Impeachment  Trial,  page  415,) 
Judge  Botkin  did  this  illegal  and  unheard-of  act: 

“And  the  court  on  its  own  motion  doth  appoint  J.  M.  Adams  receiver  herein, 
and  fixes  his  bond  at  $10,000,  to  be  filed  within  forty-eight  hours.” 

J.  M.  Adams  was  city  treasurer,  and  one  of  the  defendants.  Section  255  of 
the  Kansas  civil  code  reads:  “No  party,  or  attorney,  or  person  interested  in 
an  action,  shall  be  appointed  receiver  therein.”  The  appointment  of  “ J.  M. 
Adams  as  receiver,”  was  a flagrant  violation  of  positive  law.  More  than  that: 
no  court  or  judge  has  or  ever  did  have  the  right  or  authority  in  any  case  to  ap- 
point “a  receiver  on  his  own  motion.”  A receiver  can  only  be  appointed  on 
a proper  application  made  by  a party  to  the  suit.  The  application  must  be 
in  writing,  duly  filed,  and  supported  by  affidavits.  There  is  no  exception  to 
this  rule  to  be  found  anywhere  outside  of  Judge  Botkin’s  court  — and  even 
there  such  a proceeding  is  a high-handed  outrage.  Again,  as  this  action  No. 
543  was  against  the  mayor,  councilmen,  city  clerk  and  city  treasurer,  as  de- 
fendants, it  was  practically  a suit  against  the  city  of  Springfield,  a “municipal 
corporation;”  and  no  power  exists  anywhere,  in  any  court  or  judge,  in  the 
absence  of  an  express  statute  to  that  effect,  to  determine  that  a “municipal 
corporation”  is  insolvent,  and  place  it  or  its  affairs  in  the  hands  of  a receiver. 
There  was  never  any  more  occasion  or  any  more  authority  for  putting  the 
affairs  or  management  of  the  city  government  of  the  city  of  Springfield  in 


240 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


the  hands  of  a receiver , than  there  is  for  ousting  the  mayor  and  council  of  the  city 
of  Atchison,  or  Leavenworth,  or  Topeka,  or  Wichita,  from  office  and  putting 
the  government  of  such  city  in  the  hands  of  a receiver.  Why  was  this  pro- 
ceeding taken  by  Judge  Botkin?  Let  his  attorney  and  witness,  Mr.  J.  H.  Pit- 
zer,  tell  the  story;  (Impeachment  Trial,  page  1078.)  Mr.  Pitzer  was  called, 
and  examined  by  Mr.  W.  P.  Hackney: 

Q.  Did  he  [Judge  Botkin]  give  any  reason  why  he  wanted  to  appoint  a 
receiver  in  that  case?  A.  Well,  he  said  in  order  to  bring  the  money  nearer  to 
the  court . He  made  a remark  like  this:  “Here  is  a small  town  that  has  some- 
thing more  than  $50,000  indebtedness  on  it,  and  there  is  not  a thing  to  show 
for  it,  and  the  only  thing  in  sight  for  the  boys  is  what  little  money  there  is  in 
the  treasury;  and  if  the  injunction  suit  has  been  properly  brought,  I am  go- 
ing to  bring,  this  money,  by  placing  it  in  the  hands  of  a receiver,  nearer  to 
the  court,  in  order  that  it  may  be  looked  after,  and  throw  protection  around 
the  city  treasurer  or  receiver.” 

Mr.  Hackney  was  then  sent  for,  ostensibly  to  “defend”  the  members  of  the 
city  council  and  others  who  had  been  arrested  on  a pretended  criminal  charge, 
and  whose  “examination”  had  been  postponed  by  Judge  Botkin  as  an  “ex- 
amining magistrate”  until  June  27th;  (Impeachment  Trial,  page  403.) 

5.  On  June  27th,  Mr.  Hackney  reached  Springfield.  Neither  that  day,  nor 
the  next  day,  nor  at  any  time,  did  he  do  a single  act  or  file  a single  paper  in 
that  criminal  action.  But  Judge  Botkin  on  the  27th  continued  the  case  until 
the  28th,  and  then  ordered  the  discharge  of  the  defendants  without  any  further 
hearing  or  proceedings.  But  that  day,  June  28th,  the  city  council  was  called 
together  to  vote  money  to  pay  Wm.  P.  Hackney  for  his  “services”  rendered 
and  to  be  rendered  for  the  members  of  the  city  council  who  had  been  accused 
of  criminal  conduct  respecting  the  issuance  of  those  city  bonds,  and  who  had 
been  arraigned  before  Judge  Botkin  as  an  “examining  magistrate,”  and  who 
had  been  discharged  on  that  28th  day  of  June  without  a hearing  or  trial. 
The  council  met.  Mr.  Hackney  appeared  and  demanded  $4,000,  because  (as 
he  testified)  he  would  be  required  to  defend  them  against  those  criminal 
charges  at  any  time  when  called  upon  until  the  charges  would  be  barred  by 
statute!  And  the  city  records  produced  and  read  in  evidence  show  that  the 
city  council  did  vote — the  three  councilmen  who  had  been  intimidated  and 
coerced  by  the  “criminal  action”  voting  for  it,  and  the  other  two  councilmen 
voting  against  it  — to  pay  Mr.  Hackney  the  $4,000  demanded!  Here  is  the 
illegal  warrant  that  these  three  councilmen  had  voted  to  have  issued  to 
Hackney: 

“$4,000.  Spbingfield,  Kansas,  June  28th,  1890. 

“Treasurer  of  the  city  of  Springfield,  Kansas,  pay  to  W.  P.  Hackney,  or 
bearer,  four  thousand  dollars,  legal  services,  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  treas- 
ury derived  from  the  water  bonds.  By  order  of  the  city  council. 

G.  W.  Winn,  Mayor.  , 

H.  Shobtman,  Acting  Clerk.” 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


241 


Note  the  date  — 28th  June;  and  several  witnesses,  Mr.  Hackney  among 
them,  testified  that  on  that  same  night,  at  the  bank  of  which  Mr.  J.  M.  Adams, 
city  treasurer,  and  receiver,  was  also  cashier,  Judge  Botkin  made  on  the  back 
of  said  $4,000  warrant  the  two  indorsements,  as  follows: 

“June  28th,  1890. — Audited  and  allowed,  and  receiver  ordered  to  pay  same 
out  of  funds  on  hand. — Theo.  Botkin,  Judge. 

“J.  M.  Adams,  receiver  in  State  ex  rel.  vs.  G.  W.  Winn  et  al.:  Pay  within 
order  out  of  funds  in  your  hands,  and  same  shall  be  your  receipt  for  amount. 

Theo.  Botkin,  Judge.” 

And  this  warrant,  with  its  indorsements,  was  offered  and  read  in  evidence 
before  the  Senate,  and  contained  this  additional  indorsement:  “Received  the 
within  amount,  this  June  28th,  1890,  of  J.  M.  Adams. — W.  P.  Haokney.” 

To  show  jqst  how  County  Attorney  Adams  (a  brother  of  Receiver  Adams) 
and  Mr.  Hackney  understood  each  other,  see  Hackney’s  testimony,  pages  1123 
and  1124,  where,  after  stating  that  he  had  secured  from  the  city  council  the 
$4,000  city  warrant,  he  says: 

“I  drew  up  a contract  with  the  county  attorney  at  that  time  in  the  hank  for 
the  dismissal  of  that  suit  at  the  next  term  of  court.  . . . Practically  the 

suit  was  settled,  and  the  whole  thing  was  settled , criminal  cases  and  all , as  I 
understood  it  — on  the  28th  of  June,  the  night  I got  that  $4,000.” 

Nothing  further  was  ever  done  with  that  criminal  case.  A short  time  after 
June  28th,  a “demurrer”  was  filed  in  civil  action  No.  543;  and  on  the  8th  of 
September,  1890,  said  civil  action  No.  543  was  finally  dismissed  by  the  plain- 
tiff, and  on  the  27th  of  that  month  civil  action  No.  530  was  also  dismissed. 
(Impeachment  Trial,  pages  417  and  412.)  Not  ten  minutes’  work  was  ever 
done  in  either  of  said  civil  actions  after  June  17th , the  day  on  which  Judge 
Botkin  resorted  to  the  vigorous  appliance  of  a criminal  prosecution  against 
members  of  the  city  council  — which  process  resulted  in  bringing  the  city 
money  “nearer  the  court.”  But  on  the  8th  of  September  following,  Receiver 
Adams  rendered  his  account,  and  was  discharged.  His  account  and  vouchers 
appear  in  full  at  pages  417  to  420  of  Impeachment  Trial.  His  account  shows 
that  J.  M.  Adams,  receiver,  received  of  J.  M.  Adams,  city  treasurer,  $7,789.68; 
that  he  paid  out  as  receiver  the  sum  of  $5,897.25,  and  paid  back  to  himself  as 
city  treasurer  the  sum  of  $1,892.43.  Just  what  “boys”  who  were  “near  the 
court”  got  the  most  of  that  $5,897.25,  will  appear  from  the  following  items 
of  Receiver  Adams’s  account: 


Voucher  No.  2,  to  John  H.  Pitzer,  (assistant  of  Co.  Att’y  Adams) $150 

Voucher  No.  3,  to  W.  P.  Hackney  (issued  and  paid  June  28) 4,000 

Voucher  No.  4,  to  John  H.  Pitzer  (assistant  to  Co.  Att’y  Adams) 100 

Voucher  No.  9,  to  Brown  & Ney  (assistants  to  Co.  Att’y  Adams) 500 

Voucher  No.  10,  to  J.  M.  Adams,' receiver 500 


$5,250 


242 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Mr.  Pitzer,  attorney  and  witness  for  Judge  Botkin,  testified  that  he  rendered 
no  services  whatever  for  the  city,  or  for  the  city  officers,  but  was  employed  by 
County  Attorney  Adams  to  assist  him,  in  the  two  civil  actions  and  the  crimi- 
nal action  against  the  city  officers.  It  was  also  proven  that  Brown  <fc  Ney 
were  employed  to  assist  County  Attorney  Adams  in  the  civil  actions.  It  was 
also  proven  that  the  city  council  did  not  vote  any  order  or  warrant  to  Mr. 
Pitzer,  or  to  Brown  & Ney,  but  that  Judge  Botkin  fixed  the  amounts  paid  to 
them  and  made  the  allowances.  So,  there  went  to  the  “boys,”  Hackney,  Pitzer, 
and  Brown  & Ney,  the  aggregate  of  $4,750  for  attorney  fees  for  services  never 
performed,  or  for  services  (so  far  as  any  were  performed)  which  it  was  the 
official  duty  of  County  Attorney  Adams  to  perform  himself.  Who  will  say 
that  the  city  of  Springfield  was  not  robbed ! 

What  did  the  Senate  do  on  this  10th  article?  The  form  of  the  question 
was  — 

“Senators,  what  say  you  — Is  the  respondent,  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  of 
the  Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  guilty  or  not  guilty  of  a misdemeanor 
in  office  as  charged  in  the  10th  article?” 

And  the  35  Senators  present  voted  as  follows: 

Guilty  — Senators  Carroll  of  Miami,  Elliston,  Forney,  Gillett,  Harkness, 
Hays,  Howard,  Kimball,  King,  Long,  McTaggart,  Rankin,  Rush,  Senior,  Smith, 
Tucker,  Wheeler,  and  Woodward  — 18. 

Not  Guilty  — Senators  Bentley,  Berry,  Carroll  of  Leavenworth,  Emery,  Kel- 
ley of  Crawford,  Kelly  of  McPherson,  Lockard,  Mechem,  Mohler,  Moody, 
Murdock,  Norton,  Osborn,  Richter,  Roe,  Schilling,  and  Wright  — 17. 

Absent  — Senators  Buchan,  Johnson,  Kirkpatrick,  and  Martin  — 4. 

And  the  proclamation  was  made  “that  Theodosius  Botkin  is  acquitted  upon 
each  and  all  of  the  articles  and  specifications  as  set  forth  in  the  articles  of 
impeachment  as  presented  by  the  House  of  Representatives.” 

Before  closing  this  synopsis  of  the  Botkin  trial,  it  is  proper  to  refer  to  the 
arguments  made  in  the  case,  and  to  quote  a few  passages  from  some  of  these 
arguments.  Mr.  Douglass,  of  Wichita,  Republican,  opened  the  argument  on 
the  part  of  the  State.  He  made  a masterly  address,  thoroughly  examining 
the  testimony,  and  he  showed  conclusively  that  every  article  was  fully  proven. 
His  argument  will  be  found  in  Impeachment  Trial,  pages  1146  to  1217.  We 
quote  from  his  closing  paragraphs  a few  sentences: 

“Now  what  is  the  policy  of  the  defense  in  this  case?  A constant  endeavor 
to  play  upon  the  supposed  prejudices  of  the  Senate.  When  we  show  you  that 
Botkin  was  drunk  in  bed,  and  could  not  hold  court  — when  we  show  his  filthy 
obscenity  and  Vulgarity  on  and  off  the  bench  — when  we  show  you  that  he  is 
the  constant  patron  of  illicit  drinking  places,  and  fumbling  around  for 
whisky  bottles  in  lumber  piles  and  rock  piles  — when  we  show  you  that  he  has 
illegally  imprisoned  American  citizens,  inserting  willful  falsehoods  to  get  a 
seeming  jurisdiction  — when  we  show  you  how  he  engineered  this  robbery  of 
the  Springfield  treasury  — his  counsel  get  up  and  holloa  Sam . Wood,  and  then 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


243 


expect  every  Senator  to  take  to  the  brush!  They  tell  you  he  and  Sam.  Wood 
had  a falling-out,  and  therefore  you  must  stand  bj  Botkin! 

“Senator  Moody  remarked  the.  other  day  that  lIt  appears  that  the  Republi- 
can party  is  on  trial , and  nobody  else.'1  The  distinguished  Senator,  I am  sure, 
cannot  mean  that  the’  Republican  party  is  on  trial  for  tyranny,  oppression, 
blasphemy,  drunkenness,  and  the  robbery  of  a city  treasury — for  that  grand 
party , in  whose  ranks  I am-  proud  to  march , always  has  been , and  if  it  is  to 
live  in  the  future  must  be,  the  eternal  enemy  of  such  things  as  these. 

“Acquit  this  respondent,  and  you  perpetuate  in  office  for  two  years  and  a 
half,  in  this  great  temperance  commonwealth,  a judge  whose  drinking  habits 
are  notorious;  a judge  who  carries  a two-gallon  jug  with  him  as  a part  of  his 
judicial  equipment;  a judge  who  sleeps  with  whisky  bottles  in  his  bed;  a judge 
who  drinks  with  criminals  at  the  bar  before  him;  a judge  who  casts  American 
citizens  into  jail  for  no  cause  save  the  crime  of  petitioning  for  his  removal 
from  the  office  he  has  disgraced;  a judge  who  prostituted  his  high  office  as  to 
use  its  powers  for  the  pilfering  of  a city  treasury,  and  to  distribute  its  moneys 
among  a few  of  his  chums  and  cronies,  in  gross  and  open  violation  of  law. 
. . . Senators,  you  may  acquit  or  convict  Theodosius  Botkin  as  you  will, 

but  that  spotted  record  will  standi 

Mb.  Bradford  followed  Mr.  Douglass,  and  made  the  opening  argument  on 
the  part  of  Judge  Botkin.  His  argument  will  be  found  from  page  1218  to 
1250.  He  contended,  as  he  did  upon  the  demurrer,  that  “misdemeanors  in 
office”  meant  official  misconduct,  and  nothing  more  — hence  no  impeachable 
offense  was  charged,  except  by  the  ninth  and  tenth  articles,  and  as  to  these, 
the  proof  did  not  sustain  the  charges,  because  Judge  Botkin  was  ignorant  of 
the  law.  As  to  the  ninth  article  (quoting  from  p.  1240),  Mr.  Bradford  said: 

“If  Judge  Botkin,  in  causing  the  arrest  of  those  persons,  simply  mistook  the 
law  or  the  facts  (and  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  he  did  it  with  an  unlaw- 
ful or  malicious  intent),  they  fail  to  show  that  he  is  guilty  under  the  ninth 
article ! ” 

Mr.  Bradford’s  statement  that  there  was  no  testimony  showing  malice  and 
unlawful  intent  is  a mere  fiction  of  his  own.  The  evidence  of  wicked  and 
malicious  intent  and  purpose,  in  every  case  of  imprisonment,  was  simply  over- 
whelming. But  the  unlawful  acts  imply  malice  and  unlawful  intent. 

Mr.  Mackey,  of  counsel  for  the  State,  followed  Mr.  Bradford.  His  argu- 
ment occupies  about  30  pages  of  the  trial  record.  It  was  a masterly  address, 
and  presented  the  cause  on  the  part  of  the  Board  of  Managers  with  great 
skill  and  ability. 

Mr.  Wm.  P.  Hackney,  the  witness-lawyer  of  Judge  Botkin,  followed  Mr. 
Mackey.  His  argument  begins  at  page  1283  of  Impeachment  Trial,  and  ex- 
tends to  page  1328.  It  is  difficult  to  properly  characterize  Mr.  Hackney’s  ad- 
dress— but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  it  was  alike  audacious,  malignant,  and  false. 
He  seemed  to  realize  that  he  was  on  trial  before  the  intelligent  people  of  Kan- 
sas as  the  confederate  of  Judge  Botkin  in  the  robbery  scheme  whereby  the 
city  of  Springfield  was  plundered,  and  he  apparently  thought  that  Judge  Bot- 


244 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


kin’s  peril  and  his  own  were  due  to  the  fact  that  the  People’s  Party  of  Kansas 
was  in  the  majority,  and  intended  to  bring  the  wicked,  corrupt  violators  of 
law  to  speedy  justice.  Mr.  Hackney’s  animus  and  falsehood  will  be  best 
shown  by  extracts  from  his  address:  * 

“That  all  men  are  presumed  to  be  innocent  until  the  contrary  is  proven, 
has  been  a vitalizing  force  and  power  everywhere  in  Kansas  outside  of  the 
Farmers’  Alliance.”  (Page  1284.) 

“A  remarkable  character  appears  in  this  case:  they  have  s*aid  the  argument 
would  be  Sam.  Wood  — and  these  men  know  that  this  case  was  instituted  by 
this  one  man  and  his  confederates.”  (Page  1285.) 

This  statement  of  Mr.  Hackney  is  nowhere  proven  by  the  evidence.  On 
the  contrary,  the  testimony  showed  conclusively,  (and  that  testimony  is  suffi- 
ciently quoted  and  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  pages,)  that  the  proceedings 
to  impeach  and  remove  Judge  Botkin  originated  with  and  were  controlled  by 
Republicans  alone.  But  we  quote  further  from  Mr.  Hackney: 

“Last  year  there  was  a rebellion  in  politics.  The  weak-kneed  politician 
who  didn’t  know  whether  he  was  on  foot  or  on  horseback,  with  his  eyeballs 
protruding,  his  nose  warty,  and  his  face  wan,  entered  an  organization  having 
for  its  object  the  overthrow  of  the  Republican  party.  . . . Botkin  finds 

this  new  party  rampant,  with  Sam.  Wood  and  Elder  in  the  lead,  and  he  pub- 
lished the  record  of  Wood  and  Elder  and  Willetts,  and  he  had  the  foolhardi- 
ness to  go  over  the  country  in  the  campaign  and  declare  their  villainies.  Of 
course,  when  they  got  the  Legislature  somebody  had  to  pay  the  penalty  of 
Botkin’s  indiscretions.  . . . Now  he  is  to  be  sacrificed.  (Page  1288.) 

“One  Senator  wanted  to  know  whether  Judge  Botkin  was  on  trial,  or  the 
Republican  party.  I submit  to  every  Republican,  and  Democrat  too,  if  it  is 
not  true  from  start  to  finish,  this  is  a trial  of  the  Republican  party  instead 
of  Judge  Botkin.  . . . And  that  treasonable,  oath-bound  organization, 

that  is  a curse  to  any  people  on  earth,  without  regard  to  fair  dealing  or  the 
rights  of  citizens  or  anybody  else,  placed  Botkin  on  trial  in  this  court  with- 
out one  single  piece  of  evidence  being  seen  by  the  one  hundred  and  odd 
members  of  that  House.  ( Page  1289.) 

“The  Attorney  General  abandoned  this  case  in  a few  days,  be  it  said  to  his 
credit.  While  he  belongs  to  that  crowd,  while  he  is  tarred  with  the  same 
stick,  he  had  manhood  enough  to  absent  himself  from  this  business.  He  has 
not  darkened  this  chamber  since.  (Page  1290.) 

“If  Judge  Botkin  issued  a warrant  for  his  [Van  Yoorhis’s]  arrest  by  mis- 
take, in  the  light  of  the  testimony  in  this  trial,  there  is  nobody  going  to  shed 
tears  over  it.  (Page  1306.)  . . . The.se  scoundrels,”  [ having  reference  to 

Yan  Yoorhis  and  others  who  were  petitioning  for  the  removal  of  Judge  Bot- 
kin from  office,]  “if  they  got  into  the  clutches  of  the  law  wrongfully,  are  never 
damaged  any,  and  it  should  not  be  so  considered.”  (Page  1310.) 

“As  God  is  my  judge,  I never  will  persecute  an  old  soldier  at  the  behest  of 
such  a man  as  Wood,  or  Webb,  or  this  infernal  secret  organization  known  as 
the  Farmers’  Alliance.  ...  I might  steal  $4,000,  but  I would  not  do  as 
contemptible  a thing  as  that.”  ( Page  1309.) 

“Now  then,  suppose  the  Judge  did  issue  a warrant  not  authorized  by  law, 
as  alleged.  . . . All  men  make  mistakes.  Judge  Botkin  made  a mistake 

that  time . (Page  1311.) 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


245 


“Are  you  going  to  impeach  him  because  he  made  a mistake  in  arresting 
Van  Voorhis?  No,  because  it  was  simply  a judicial  mistake.  Are  you  going 
to  impeach  him  because  he  arrested  [Garrison]  that  drunken  dead-beat  that 
did  the  dirty  work  of  this  prosecution?  In  God's  name,  no.”  (Page  1324.) 

Mr.  Hackney  waxed  eloquent  respecting  Mr.  Garrison;  yet  the  testimony 
showed  that  Judge  Botkin  had  been  drunk  an  hundred  times  to  Garrison’s 
once.  And  as  to  the  “dirty  work”  done  by  Garrison,  the  testimony  was  con- 
clusive that  after  getting  Garrison  in  jail,  Botkin  and  Pitzer  and  Larabee 
(Botkin’s  stenographer)  bribed  Garrison  to  turn  over  and  work  for  Botkin  — 
that  Botkin  gave  him  $4  and  Pitzer  gave  him  $10  more,  and  upon  Garrison’s 
making  some  affidavits,  and  delivering  to  Botkin  and  Larabee  all  the  affida- 
vits and  letters  he  had,  Botkin  first  admitted  him  to  bail  and  then  ordered  his 
release!  Mr.  Hackney  evidently  forgot  this  feature  of  Garrison’s  great  use- 
fulness! Let  us  quote  further  from  Mr.  Hackney’s  high-toned  address: 

“Are  you  going  to  impeach  him  because  he  told  the  Farmers’  Alliance  lead- 
ers what  they  were,  and  because  he  dared  to  lay  his  hand  on  the  sneaking  crew 
who  were  attempting  to  stab  the  Republican  party?  Are  you  going  to  im- 
peach him  because  he  arraigned  the  administration  and  eulogized  Ingalls  for 
his  faithfulness  to  his  party?  Are  you  going  to  impeach  him  because  that 
crowd  got  together  and  drove  Ingalls  from  his  proud  position,  and  put  a jack- 
daw in  his  place?  (Page  1325.) 

“Will  it  do  any  good  to  do  it  ” — [that  is,  to  convict  J udge  Botkin]  ? “ You 

stay  in  the  Republican  party  or  you  are  ruined.  You  may  be  as  pure  as  the 
falling  snow,  as  bright  as  Jim  Blaine,  as  brainy  as  John  J.  Ingalls,  and  they 
would  run  a dirty  political  scab  and  he  would  beat  you  blind  before  that  one- 
gallused,  hungry,  measley,  miserable  outfit.  . . . We  ran  Judge  Perkins, 

and  they  ran  a miserable  unwashed  vagabond,  and  beat  him  [Perkins]  blind. 
They  beat  Harrison  Kelley  because  he  was  a Republican.  They  beat  Perkins 
because  he  was  a Republican.  They  beat  Col.  Phillips  because  he  was  a Re- 
publican— and  it  came  mighty  near  sweeping  the  Republican  party  of  the 
State  out  of  power.  I told  you  once  that  that  damnable  outfit  would  wear  you 
out;  and  the  next  time  they  will  do  it  as  sure  as  fate.  . . . Why,  gentle- 

men, talk  about  placating  that  infernal  organization  by  convicting  Botkin?  I 
say,  no  — in  God’s  name,  no.  Not  another  effort.  Let  us  fight  now,  and  at  once ; 
and  don’t  let  us  give  one  inch.  (Page  1326.) 

“This  wild  and  woolly  herd  of  fanatics  will  either  receive  a check,  or  will 
overwhelm  us  all.  The  Republicans  will  be  snowed  under,  and  nothing  that 
you  can  do  will  ever  get  the  Alliance  vote;  and  if  any  man  on  the  floor  thinks 
he  can  placate  that  crowd  by  voting  to  convict  Botkin,  let  him  look  at  Col.  Phil- 
lips, Harrison  Kelley,  and  Judge  Perkins  — let  him  look  at  the  last  Republican 
State  ticket /”  (Page  1327.) 

The  foregoing  are  fair  specimens  of  the  harangue  which  Mr.  Hackney  ad- 
dressed to  the  Senate.  It  was  intended  to  catch  and  control  the  ultra-parti- 
san Republican  members,  and  aided  by  the  personal  appeals  privately  made 
by  Mr.  Hackney,  and  by  men  occupying  higher  places  in  the  official  scale,  it 
was  successful.  It  no  doubt  governed  the  votes  of  Senators  Bentley,  Berry, 
—15 


246 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Kelley  of  Crawford,  Lockard,  Mechem,  Mohler,  Norton,  Richter,  Roe,  Schilling, 
and  Wright  — eleven  votes.  These  votes,  or  any  nine  of  them,  added  to  the 
eighteen  votes  given  for  conviction  on  the  ninth  and  tenth  articles,  would  have 
removed  Judge  Botkin  from  office,  and  relieved  the  State  from  the  foul  dis- 
grace of  keeping  him  on  the  bench. 

Me.  Hanback,  also  of  counsel  for  Judge  Botkin,  followed  Mr.  Hackney.  His 
argument  was  mainly  a presentation  of  the  questions  argued  on  the  demurrer, 
and  a rehearsal  of  J udge  Botkin’s  record  as  a “ brave  Union  soldier.”  It  begins 
at  page  1329  of  the  Impeachment  Trial,  and  occupies  thirteen  pages. 

Me.  Webb,  of  the  Board  of  Managers,  made  the  closing  argument  on  behalf 
of  the  State.  His  address  will  be  found  at  pages  1342  to  1372.  There  is  not 
space  enough  left  for  us  to  make  any  synopsis  of  Mr.  Webb’s  argument.  It 
is  sufficient  to  say  that  he  met  all  the  propositions  legitimately  in  the  case, 
supplementing  the  able  and  convincing  arguments  of  Messrs.  Douglass  and 
Mackey.  But  it  was  unavailing  as  against  the  personal  and  partisan  appeals 
made  by  Mr.  Hackney.  The  arguments  closed  on  May  21st,  and  on  the  next 
day,  May  22d,  the  Senate  voted,  with  the  result  already  stated. 

It  will  be  instructive  to  note  the  views  of  Senators  upon  the  question  of- 
Judge  Botkin’s  guilt.  On  taking  the  vote  on  the  1st  article,  Senators  Bentley 
and  Carroll  of  Leavenworth  contented  themselves  with  saying  that  they  were 
satisfied  that  the  repondent  was  “not  guilty,”  and  then  voted  accordingly. 
Only  three  other  Senators  expressed  any  opinion  beyond  the  vote  given. 
These  three  opinions  may  be  briefly  summarized: 

Senatob  Riohtee:  The  respondent  is  shown  to  have  done  what  a man  oc- 
cupying his  high  office  ought  not  to  have  done;  but  the  evidence  against  him 
is  colored  by  malice  and  prejudice  to  such  an  extent  that  I am  loath  to  find 
him  guilty! 

Senator  Kimball  said  he  did  not  hear  all  the  evidence  as  it  was  given. 
[ He  was  occupied  a portion  of  the  time  as  a member  of  the  dynamite  com- 
mittee.] He  said  he  had  consulted  his  brother  Senators,  and  based  vote 
largely  upon  their  views  as  to  the  effect  of  the  evidence. 

Senator  Osborn  said  that,  in  his  judgment,  articles  1,  2,  3,  7 and  8 did 
not  present  impeachable  offenses,  not  charging  official  misconduct;  that  the 
remedy  for  these  offenses  was  by  removal  by  concurrent  resolution,  under  au- 
thority of  section  15  of  article  3 of  the  constitution.  To  have  been  consist- 
ent, he  should  have  voted  to  sustain  the  demurrer  to  those  articles. 

Let  us  go  back  a little.  Mr.  Hackney’s  testimony  will  be  found  at  pages 
1115  to  1132.  He  testified  that  Receiver  Adams  paid  him  the  $4,000  called 
for  by  the  city  warrant  (which  warrant  was  “audited”  by  Judge  Botkin,  and 
“ordered  paid”  by  him)  in  certificates  of  deposit  and  drafts.  He  also  testi- 
fied that  on  the  next  morning  he  and  Judge  Botkin  left  Springfield  together; 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


247 


that  they  went  to  Topeka,  where  two  drafts  of  $250  each  were  cashed  by  the 
Topeka  bank  on  June  30th.  He  further  testified  that  the  “certificates  of  de- 
posit” taken  by  him  were  payable  in  ninety  days  from  date,  (June  28th,) 
and  he  said  (see  pages  1119,  1125  and  1126)  that  about  October  1st  Judge 
Botkin  asked  him  for  a “loan  of  $250,”  and  that  he  sent  him  three  drafts 
of  $250  — making  $750,  of  which  Hackney  said  that  $500  was  to  be  used  for 
Hackney’s  benefit  in  Oklahoma  affairs.  Now  these  facts,  following  that  most 
significant  order  made  by  Judge  Botkin  with  the  declared  object  of  “bring- 
ing the  money  nearer  the  court,”  had  such  a bad  look  that  Mr.  Bradford  and 
Judge  Botkin  felt  it  necessary  to  have  Mr.  Hackney  explain.  Hackney  was 
equal  to  the  necessities  of  the  case.  Here  are  Mr.  Bradford’s  question  and 
Mr.  Hackney’s  answer: 

Q.  You  stated  that  the  Judge  did  pay  you  back  the  $250,  etc.;  explain  how 
that  occurred.  A.  I went  through  here  to  Chicago  the  day  before  the  election. 
As  I came  back,  at  Newton  I met  the  Judge;  not  by  any  previous  arrange- 
ment, but  I met  him,  and  he  had  the  money  in  an  envelope,  and  he  gave  it  to 
me  — the  $750. 

And  that  is  every  word  of  “explanation”  made  or  attempted  to  be  made 
by  Mr.  Hackney  about  that  pretended  repayment.  Botkin  had  $750  in  money 
(not  drafts,  or  checks,)  but  in  currency , “in  an  envelope,”  carrying  it  around 
the  State,  and  met  Hackney  by  accident  at  Newton!  The  peculiar  features  of 
these  pretended  occurrences  Mr.  Hackney  did  not  attempt  to  explain.  But 
the  matter  did  not  wholly  escape  attention.  The  State  had  proved  by  Mr. 
Hackney  himself  that  he  was  at  Guthrie,  Oklahoma,  most  of  the  summer  and 
fall  of  1890;  that  one  M.  J.  McAllister  was  his  stenographer,  ( pages  531  and 
1119;)  and  had  proved  by  the  assistant  cashier  of  the  Springfield  bank  that  a 
draft  for  $250,  drawn  October  9th  by  a Guthrie  bank  to  M.  J.  McAllister,  and 
indorsed  to  “Theo.  Botkin,”  was  presented  at  the  Springfield  bank  October 
29th  by  Judge  Botkin,  indorsed  by  him  and  paid  to  him;  (page  455.)  So 
Senator  Carroll  of  Miami  (p.  1131)  asked  Mr.  Hackney  what  Judge  Botkin 
had  done  to  assist  him  in  Oklahoma  matters,  and  Hackney  answered: 

“He  didn’t  do  anything.  He  done  what  I told  him  to  about  getting  the  drafts 
• cashed , and  gave  the  money  back,  giving  as  his  reason  that  he  hadn’t  time  and 
couldn’t  do  it.” 

The  attempted  “explanation”  was  exceedingly  thin,  and  more  than  one 
Senator  disbelieved  Hackney’s  statements.  (See  remarks  of  Senators  Elliston, 
Gillett,  and  Kimball,  all  Republicans,  pages  1392  to  1396.)  We  quote  a single 
paragraph: 

Senator  Kimbael:  . . . As  to  whether  Judge  Botkin  received  any  of 

this  money,  I do  not  know.  The  evidence  shows  that  $250  was  loaned  to  him, 
and  shortly  afterward  $500  more,  by  Mr.  Hackney,  the  man  who  got  away 
with  the  $4,000;  and  there  is  evidence  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Hackney  that  he  met 
Judge  Botkin  at  Newton,  and  the  Judge  happened  just  at  that  time  to  have  in 


248 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


his  pocket  that  $750,  and  handed  it  to  Mr.  Hackney.  . . . The  story  told 

by  Mr.  Hackney,  I am  free  to  say,  is  not  in  all  respects  reasonable  and  consist- 
ent; and  if  I were  compelled  to  say  whether  it  were  true  or  not,  I should  be  in 
very  grave  doubts  about  accepting  it.  I am  free  to  say  that. 

But  was  there  any  question  as  to  the  proof  of  Botkin’s  guilt?  Let  the  Sen- 
ators who  voted  “not  guilty”  answer  for  themselves: 

Senator  Gillett:  I am  convinced  that  the  warrant  for  the  arrest  of  these 
parties  [Van  Yoorhis,  Garrison,  Thompson  and  Calvert]  was  issued  without 
any  authority  of  law . A judge  issuing  a warrant  bringing  within  his  power 
an  American  citizen,  depriving  him  of  his  liberty,  ought  to  know  what  the 
law  is  or  inform  himself  before  issuing  process  to  accomplish  such  a purpose; 
but  I credit  to  the  court  in  this  instance  with  a mistake  of  the  law.  ( Page 
1387.) 

Senator  Kelly  of  McPherson:  I am  not  unmindful  that  the  arrest  of 
a citizen,  I care  not  how  humble,  without  process  of  law,  is  a flagrant  violation 
of  the  rights  of  the  American  citizen.  But  . . . this  judge  was  besieged 

by  men  who  were  his  enemies,  and  who  are  attempting  to  drag  him  down,  to 
bury  him  politically.  ...  I vote  not  guilty.  (Page  1388.) 

Senator  Meohem:  While  it  is  true  that  these  parties  were  arrested,  and  pos- 
sibly arrested  illegally , yet  it  seems  to  me  that  the  evidence  negatives  the  idea 
of  oppression  and  malice;  . . . and  the  testimony  throws  some  light  upon 

the  questions  of  whether  it  was  willfully  or  knowingly  done.  ...  I there- 
fore vote  not  guilty.  (Page  1390.) 

Senator  Murdock:  The  respondent  is  a man  of  strong  mental  force.  He 
knows  the  right,  . . . but  it  seems  that  he  at  times  failed  to  meet  the  ex- 

pectations of  those  who  honored  him  with  their  votes.  Instead  of  meeting 
and  settling  questions  by  due  process  of  the  law , he  at  times  adopted  arbitrary 
measures  which  are  not  in  direct  lines  of  strict  interpretation  of  law.  (Page 
1398.) 

As  to  the  tenth  article:  Senator  Carroll  of  Leavenworth  (p.  1392)  admit- 
ted that  there  had  been  corrupt  practices  in  the  paying  of  the  $4,000  to  Mr. 
Hackney,  but  he  thought  the  “city  officials”  were  the  ones  to  be  censured,  and 
that  the  proper  remedy  was  for  the  city  to  sue  Hackney  and  recover  back  the 
money!  So  he  voted  “not  guilty.” 

Senator  Elliston  (p.  1394)  said,  “the  money  never  could  have  been  paid 
to  Mr.  Hackney  and  others,  if  the  Judge  had,  as  was  his  duty,  stood  between  # 
the  city  and  the  men  who  were  trying  to  rob  it.” 

Senator  Gillett,  who  had  voted  “not  guilty”  on  the  ninth  article,  said 
(p.  1394)  that  the  tenth  article  had  given  him  a deal  of  concern.  He  thought 
the  Judge  had  mistaken  the  law  as  to  the  power  to  appoint  a receiver;  he  be- 
lieved the  orders  given  by  the  Judge  to  the  receiver,  to  pay  out  the  money, 
were  wrong,  and  he  was  compelled  to  vote  “guilty.” 

Senator  Rush  (p.  1399)  said,  “Talk  about  suing  Hackney  for  $4,000,  and 
Pitzer  for  $250,  and  Brown  for  $500!  Not  one  dollar  of  that  money  could 
have  been  obtained  by  those  gentlemen  without  the  written  consent  or  order  of 
the  judge  on  the  receiver  to  pay  the  money.” 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


249 


One  other  voice  must  be  heard.  Mr.  A.  G.  Stagey  was  the  Secretary  of 
the  Senate  during  the  sessions  of  1889  and  1891,  and  during  the  Impeachment 
Trial.  He  was  an  ultra  Republican,  and  he  assumed  on  all  occasions  to  speak 
for  the  Republican  Senators.  He  was,  during  all  that  time,  the  accredited 
correspondent  of  the  Kansas  City  Journal , a Republican  newspaper.  When 
the  roll  had  been  last  called,  and  Judge  Botkin  had  been  adjudged  “not 
' guilty,”  Mr.  A.  G.  Stacey  sent  a long  dispatch  to  the  Kansas  City  Journal , which 
was  published  in  that  paper  on  Saturday  morning,  May  23d.  After  giving 
the  votes,  and  the  final  result,  Mr.  Stacey  made  the  following  most  significant 
admissions: 

“One  of  the  Senators  voting  for  conviction , it  is  charged,  cast  his  vote  to  re- 
buke Governor  Humphrey,  who  had  originally  appointed  Judge  Botkin. 
Another  Senatorliad  unfortunately  been  forced  into  one  of  the  factions  that 
was  an  anti-Botkin  faction.  One  other  Senator  was  influenced  by  personal 
reasons.  And  yet,  these  three  Senators  were  conscientious,  and  can  honestly 
and  truthfully  say  they  were  casting  their  votes  in  accordance  with  the  evidence 
given.  The  testimony  was  direct,  backed  by  documentary  evidence  which  of  itself 
would  be  incontrovertible.  . . . The  Senators  voting  for  acquittal  did  not 

attempt  to  palliate  the  violations  of  law , and  abuse  of  power,  but  looked  into.the 
motives  of  the  Judge,  and  the  influences  around  him.  He  had  been  harassed 
and  tried;  and  in  seeking  to  protect  himself  he  had  gone  further  than  he  should 
have  done,  in  both  the  9th  and  10th  articles.  . . . He  did  not  have  the 

power  to  appoint  a receiver  for  the  bankrupt  city  of  Springfield.”  . . . 

What  more  is  needed  to  show  that  the  acquittal  of  Botkin  was  a Republican 
partisan  scheme ? Mr.  Stacey  says  that  one  Senator  voted  for  conviction  “to  re- 
buke Governor  Humphrey.”  Possibly ; there  were  eighteen  Senators — seventeen 
of  them  Republicans — who  dared  to  vote  “guilty,”  although  it  was  common 
talk  in  the  Senate  chamber  during  the  last  three  or  four  days  of  the  trial  that 
Governor  Humphrey  had  personally  appealed  to  Senators  to  sustain  him  and 
his  administration  by  voting  to  acquit  Judge  Botkin.  Mr.  Stacey’s  explana- 
tion gives  color  to  the  truth  of  the  statement. 

Further  proof  of  Governor  Humphrey’s  interest  in  Botkin  was  shown  by 
Mr.  Hackney.  His  testimony  abounds  with  statements  .which  amply  show 
the  ties  and  instincts  which  would  naturally  bind  himself  and  Botkin  in  close  fel- 
lowship, and  also  why  Governor  Humphrey  should  first  appoint  Botkin,  and 
afterward  defend  him.  Mr.  Hackney  (page  1128)  said: 

“The  Governor  told  me  that  Botkin  had  been  in  three  conventions  that  had 
honored  him,  and  he  wanted  to  appoint  him,  but  that  there  was  a lot  of  fellows 
howling  about  him  being  a drunkard;  that  he  had  never  seen  him  drunk,  and 
he  wasn’t  prepared  to  believe  it.  I said  that  if  I was  Governor  of  this  State, 
and  a fellow  had  backed  me,  and  I wanted  to  appoint  him,  that  I would  do  it 
in  spite  of  all  the  State,  and  I wouldn’t  care  a damn  what  they  said.” 

There  it  is  in  a nutshell.  Political  service  created  an  obligation.  Being  a 
“drunkard”  was  of  no  moment;  but  to  have  “a  lot  of  people  howling  about 


250 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


it”  was  not  so  agreeable.  But  a “ fellow  who  backs”  a candidate  must  be  ap- 
pointed to  office  “in  spite  of  all  the  State”  and  all  the  great  interests  and 
sacred  rights  which  may  thereby  be  jeopardized,  and  Hackney  “wouldn’t  care 
a damn”  what  the  people  might  say  about  it.  Of  course  Hackney  wouldn’t 
care  what  might  be  said  or  thought  about  the  stealing  of  $4,000  — and  his 
drunkard-friend  Botkin  wouldn’t  scruple  to  aid  in  the  robbery  — and  Gov. 
Humphrey  would  naturally  regard  the  conviction  of  Botkin  as  a condemna- 
tion of  his  official  act  in  appointing  a man  who  was  at  the  time  so  common 
a drunkard  that  people  “howled  about  it,”  and  so  would  become  the  leader 
of  the  “Botkin  faction.” 

Let  the  people  of  Kansas  remember  the  Botkin  Impeachment  Trial,  and 
the  men  who  secured  Botkin’s  acquittal. 


ADDRESS  OE  THE  BOARD  OF  MANAGERS  IN  THE  BOTKIN  IMPEACHMENT  CASE. 

To  the  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives , and  through  you  to  the  People 
of  the  State  of  Kansas:  As  a committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  duly 
appointed  in  February  last,  charged  with  the  duty  of  prosecuting  before  the 
Senate  the  articles  of  impeachment  against  Theodosius  Botkin,  judge  of  the 
Thirty-second  Judicial  District,  we  deem  it  a duty  alike  to  ourselves  and  to 
the  public  that  we  render  to  the  public,  whose  servants  we  are,  an  account  of 
our  stewardship. 

Judge  Botkin  was  impeached  for  drunkenness  in  public  places;  drunken- 
ness in  his  district,  both  on  and  off  the  bench;  habitual  drunkenness;  fre- 
quenting whisky  joints,  and  there  buying,  in  violation  of  law,  intoxicating 
liquors;  he  was  charged  with  being  guilty  of  oppressive  conduct  in  office,  in 
unlawfully  and  maliciously  imprisoning,  without  any  cause  whatever,  free 
American  citizens;  and  lastly,  but  not  least,  with  corruptly  entering  into  a 
scheme  whereby  the  treasury  of  the  little  city  of  Springfield,  in  Seward 
county,  was  robbed  of  over  $5,000. 

The  articles  of  impeachment  were  duly  adopted  by  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives in  February,  and  the  undersigned  were  appointed  a Board  of  Mana- 
gers on  the  part  of  the  House  to  present  said  articles  to  the  Senate  for 
proper  action  on  the  part  of  that  body.  The  board  duly  presented  the  arti- 
cles, and  were  ready  from  thence  to  proceed  with  the  trial  whenever  they 
should  be  notified  by  the  Senate  that  that  body  was  ready  to  receive  us  and 
to  proceed.  The  Senate  duly  organized  as  a court,  and,  after  proper  prelim- 
inary proceedings,  adjourned  until  the  20th  of  April,  as  it  was  authorized  to 
do  by  law. 

By  the  provisions  of  law,  the  Attorney  General  of  the  State  became  asso- 
ciated with  the  Board  of  Managers  in  the  trial  of  the  impeachment;  and  while 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


251 


he  took  an  active  part  in  the  earlier  proceedings,  his  other  duties  kept  him 
from  assuming  that  full  control  of  the  trial  which  your  committee  had  hoped 
for.  Your  committee,  pursuant  to  custom  in  such  cases,  and  under  authority 
of  the  statute,  appointed  George  L.  Douglass,  of  Wichita,  and  A.  M.  Mackey, 
of  Topeka,  as  counsel  for  the  State,  to  assist  the  Attorney  General  and  the 
Board  of  Managers.  The  respondent  appeared  in  person,  and  was  assisted 
before  the  Senate  by  six  attorneys,  two  of  whom  reside  in  his  own  district. 

Contrary  to  the  almost  unvarying  practice  in  trials  on  impeachment,  the 
Senate  permitted  the  respondent  and  his  counsel  to  demur  to  the  articles  of 
impeachment.  This  proceeding,  and  the  arguments  thereon  respecting  all 
the  questions  of  law  arising  upon  the  articles  of  impeachment,  both  as  to 
substance  and  form,  consumed  nearly  ten  days,  and  resulted  in  a decision 
made  by  the  Senate  that  neither  the  fourth,  fifth  nor  sixth  article  stated  an 
impeachable  offense.  The  other  seven  articles  were  held  sufficient  at  that 
time  to  put  the  respondent  upon  his  defense. 

The  whole  trial,  counting  from  April  20th,  occupied  thirty-three  days  — a 
much  longer  time  than  seemed  to  your  committee  to  be  necessary.  A large 
portion  of  this  time  was  consumed  in  taking  testimony  either  brought  out  by 
the  respondent’s  attorneys  in  cross-examination  of  the  State’s  witnesses,  or 
offered  originally  on  the  part  of  the  defense,  to  which  the  Board  of  Managers 
and  their  counsel  objected  as  being  wholly  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  But 
the  Senate  admitted  a vast  amount  of  testimony  which  was  wholly  foreign  to 
the  case,  or  to  any  question  properly  in  the  case.  The  Board  of  Managers 
had  no  voice  whatever  in  determining  what  should  or  should  not  be  allowed. 
All  the  board  or  their  counsel  could  do  was  to  object,  and  almost  without  ex- 
ception their  objections  were  overruled,  either  by  the  President  of  the  Senate 
or  the  Senate  itself.  Again,  as  a rule,  the  Senate  would  adjourn  on  Friday 
umtil  the  afternoon  of  the  following  Monday,  notwithstanding  from  fifty  to 
one  hundred  witnesses  were  constantly  in  Topeka  at  the  expense  of  the  State, 
thus  adding  largely  to  the  legitimate  costs  or  expenses  of  the  trial,  and  afford- 
ing a pretext  for  those  partisans  of  the  respondent,  who  seemed  incapable 
of  appreciating  the  gravity  or  the  importance  to  the  public  of  the  trial,  for 
characterizing  the  impeachment  and  trial  as  “a  farce.”  The  Senate  also  per- 
mitted a good  deal  of  time  to  be  consumed  by  abusive  political  and  personal 
harangues  from  the  respondent’s  attorneys,  who  introduced  and  dwelt  upon 
matters  wholly  foreign  to  the  case  — many  matters  of  a purely  political  char- 
acter, intended  not  only  to  appeal  to  the  partisan  prejudices  of  the  members 
of  the  Senate,  but  to  insult  and  humiliate  the  Board  of  Managers,  the  wit- 
nesses for  the  State,  and  all  present  who  might  entertain  political  views  dif- 
fering from  those  of  the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Senate.  One  of  the 


252 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


counsel  for  the  defense  was  permitted  for  several  hours  to  outrage  public 
decency,  to  pour  out  his  vile  and  abusive  insults,  and  make  such  an  exhibit  of 
himself  as  should  have  caused  every  Senator  to  hang  his  head  in  very  shame. 
We  venture  the  suggestion  that  no  other  judicial  tribunal  in  Christendom,  of 
any  grade  or  degree,  ever  permitted  so  shameful  an  exhibition  of  vitupera- 
tion and  malignity  as  was  witnessed  in  the  high  court  of  impeachment  sitting 
in  the  Senate  chamber  of  the  State  of  Kansas  during  the  three  or  four  hours 
consumed  by  one  of  the  attorneys  for  the  respondent.  It  is  not  for  us,  as  a 
committee,  to  pass  judgment  upon  such  conduct.  The  seal  of  condemnation 
will  be  duly  affixed  by  the  intelligent  and  God-fearing  men  and  women  of 
Kansas  alike  upon  those  who  brought  about  such  a shameful  occurrence  and 
upon  that  body  of  men,  who,  having  the  power  to  prevent  it,  sat  silently  by 
and  permitted  it. 

Let  us  briefly  consider  the  facts  of  the  case  itself.  The  Board  of  Managers, 
representing  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  through  them  all  the  people 
of  Kansas,  were  prepared  to  prove,  and  did  offer  to  prove  by  prominent  citi- 
zens, that  Judge  Botkin  had,  at  different  points  in  this  State,  been  frequently 
drunk  and  had  engaged  in  drunken  quarrels  on  the  public  streets;  but  the 
Senate,  in  its  wisdom,  held  that  it  was  not  an  impeachable  offense  for  a dis- 
trict judge  to  get  “gloriously  drunk”  as  often  as  he  pleased  outside  of  his 
judicial  district,  and  it  refused  to  hear  any  evidence  upon  this  point. 

The  Senate  also  decided  that  it  was  not  an  impeachable  offense  for  a dis- 
trict judge  to  visit  and  patronize  all  the  whisky  joints  in  his  district.  There 
was  no  joint  too  low  for  this  judge  to  visit;  no  boot-legger  too  degraded  to 
become  the  intimate  chum  and  daily  companion  of  this  judge;  and  yet  this 
high  court  of  impeachment  solemnly  decided  that  such  acts  did  not  constitute 
“a  misdemeanor  in  office.” 

The  evidence  establishes  the  fact  beyond  question,  that  Judge  Botkin  is  an 
habitual  user  of  intoxicating  drinks  to  a fearful  extent.  As  many  as  thirty 
witnesses  on  the  part  of  the  State  testified  to  such  facts  as  lead  to  the  belief 
that  whisky  and  beer  have  been  his  common  beverage,  and  that  he  was,  while 
holding  his  terms  of  court,  frequently  prostrated  from  their  effects;  and  on 
cross-examination  thirty-four  of  his  own  witnesses  testified  to  having  drank 
intoxicating  liquors  with  him,  some  of  them  so  frequently  that  they  could  not 
give  any  definite  idea  of  the  number  of  times  they  had  seen  him  drink  intoxi- 
cants. It  one  case  it  was  proven,  and  not  denied,  that  Judge  Botkin,  in  the 
absence  of  the  proprietor,  raised  the  back  window  of  a drug-store  “joint” 
and  went  in  and  helped  himself  and  others  to  whisky;  and  in  another  case  it 
was  proven  by  numerous  creditable  witnesses  that  he  was  in  bed  at  a hotel  in 
the  daytime,  and  in  a drunken  stupor  for  several  hours,  and  with  several 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL. 


253 


whisky  bottles  in  the  bed  with  him,  while  officers  of  the  court  and  parties  hav- 
ing business  to  be  transacted  were  at  the  court-house  waiting  for  court  to  be 
opened. 

Upon  the  testimony  your  committee  believed,  and  still  believe,  that  no  man 
who  uses  intoxicating  drinks  to  the  extent  proven  against  the  respondent  is 
qualified  for  the  proper  discharge  of  the  important  and  responsible  duties 
pertaining  to  the  high  office  of  district  judge.  Yet  the  decision  of  the  State 
Senate,  the  high  and  mighty  body  elected  on  a prohibition  platform,  in  a pro- 
hibition State,  encourages  the  violation  of  every  provision  of  the  prohibitory 
liquor  law.  It  condones  the  offense  of  drunkenness  in  a judge  elected  on  the 
same  platform. 

On  the  ninth  article,  charging  oppression  in  office  in  unlawfully  and  ma- 
liciously imprisoning  free  American  citizens,  the  evidence  showed  that  Judge 
Botkin  had,  for  the  purpose  of  wreaking  his  vengeance,  imprisoned  four  citi- 
zens of  this  State,  without  even  a shadow  of  cause;  and  yet,  of  the  thirty-five 
members  of  this  high  court  who  were  present  and  voting,  sixteen  voted  to 
acquit,  in  face  of  an  overwhelming  mass  of  uncontradicted  and  unimpeached 
evidence.  The  four  citizens  oppressively  and  illegally  arrested  and  imprisoned 
by  this  tyrannical  and  wicked  judge  were  H.  F.  Thompson,  the  editor  of  the 
Springfield  Republican,  C.  L.  Calvert,  a former  editor  of  the  same  newspaper, 
John  F.  Van  Yoorhis,  the  chairman  of  the  Seward  county  Republican  central 
committee,  and  John  R.  Garrison,  All  these  men  were  Republicans.  Three 
of  them  were  residents  of  the  county  in  which  Judge  Botkin  resides.  Two  of 
them,  Thompson  and  Calvert,  sought  relief  from  Judge  Botkin’s  power  and 
revenge  by  means  of  habeas  corpus  proceedings  in  the  Supreme  Court;  and  this 
court  only  three  weeks  ago  (and  while  this  impeachment  trial  was  in  progress) 
ordered  their  discharge,  holding  and  deciding  that  Judge  Botkin’s  order  for 
their  arrest  and  imprisonment  was  illegal  and  oppressive,  and  void  for  want 
of  jurisdiction.  While  it  is  a matter  of  profound  and  painful  regret  that  the 
high  court  of  impeachment  did  not  remove  the  tyrant  and  oppressor  from 
office,  it  is  gratifying  to  know  that  the  oppressed  and  suffering  people  of  the 
Thirty-second  Judicial  District  can  find  relief  from  some  of  the  wrongs  they 
suffer  upon  making  proper  appeals  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State.  But 
let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  eighteen  Senators  deemed  the  proof  of  Judge  Bot- 
kin’s cruelty  and  oppression  so  plain  and  conclusive  that  they  voted  for  his 
conviction  on  the  ninth  article;  and  of  these  eighteen  Senators,  seventeen  be- 
long to  Judge  Botkin’s  own  political  party. 

The  tenth  article  preferred  against  Judge  Botkin  charged  him  in  substance 
with  the  systematic  robbery  of  the  little  city  of  Springfield,  in  Seward  county. 
In  brief,  the  proven  facts  are  these:  The  treasurer  of  the  city  of  Springfield 
held  nearly  $8,000  of  money  realized  from  the  sale  of  city  bonds  issued  by 


254 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


the  city  officers  for  water-works  purposes.  Under  the  pretense  that  the  bonds 
had  been  illegally  issued,  and  that  the  city  officers  had  been  guilty  of  a crime, 
Judge  Botkin  caused  the  mayor  and  several  of  the  councilmen  and  an  attor- 
ney to  be  arrested  upon  a criminal  charge,  and  brought  before  him  for  trial 
or  examination.  In  a civil  suit  already  pending  against  the  mayor  and  other 
city  officers,  he  had  kept  the  city  money  in  the  treasurer’s  hands  by  an  injunc- 
tion which  he  had  granted.  In  this  civil  action  Mr.  J.  M.  Adams,  city  treasurer, 
was  one  of  the  defendants.  Having  put  the  mayor  and  a majority  of  the  city 
councilmen  in  fear,  he  appointed  City  Treasurer  Adams  “a  receiver”  in  a 
civil  suit  in  which  Adams  was  one  of  the  defendants.  In  appointing  this  re- 
ceiver, Judge  Botkin  was  guilty  of  three  high-handed  and  illegal  acts.  First, 
the  statute  (section  255  of  the  Civil  Code  of  Kansas)  expressly  declares  that 
“no  party , attorney,  or  other  person  interested  in  an  action , shall  be  appointed 
receiver  therein.”  Second,  Judge  Botkin  appointed  the  receiver  “on  his  own 
motion,”  without  any  application  or  proof  made  by  any  one  for  any  appoint- 
ment, a proceeding  never  before  heard  of  anywhere,  and  a proceeding  which 
has  not  a shadow  of  law,  nor  decency,  nor  propriety,  nor  necessity  to  support 
it.  Third,  the  proceeding  was  practically  the  appointment  of  a receiver  for 
a municipal  corporation , a thing  which  cannot  be  lawfully  done  anywhere. 
The  story  of  this  infamous  proceeding  on  the  part  of  Judge  Botkin  was  told 
by  Mr.  John  H.  Pitzer,  one  of  the  respondent’s  attorneys,  who  was  called  and 
testified  in  behalf  of  the  respondent  on  May  14th.  Mr.  Pitzer,  when  examined 
by  Judge  Botkin’s  attorney,  testified  thus: 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  remarks  of  Judge  Botkin  at  the  time,  in  appointing 
the  receiver?  A.  I did. 

Q.  What  did  he  say?  A.  . . . The  court  then  proceeded  to  say  that  he 

had  been  annoyed  a great  deal  about  that  case  and  the  condition  of  affairs 
connected  with  it;  that  ...  in  view  of  the  threats  that  had  been  made  — 
and  considerable  excitement  existed  at  that  time  over  the  city  treasurer  refus- 
ing to  pay  warrants  since  the  injunction  was  granted  — he  would  appoint  a 
receiver.  He  believed  it  was  simply  one  band  of  robbers  against  another  at- 
tempting to  get  hold  of  the  city  funds,  and  that  he  would  appoint  J.  M.  Adams 
receiver,  and  would  give  him  forty-eight  hours  to  file  his  bond  in  the  sum  of 
$10,000,  to  be  approved  by  the  court;  and  if  not  filed  in  that  time,  the  money 
should  be  turned  over  to  the  clerk  of  the  court. 

Q.  Did  he  give  any  reason  why  he  wanted  to  appoint  a receiver  in  that  case? 
A.  Well,  he  said  in  order  to  bring  the  money  nearer  to  the  court.  He  made  a 
remark  like  this:  Here  is  a small  town  that  has  something  more  than  $50,000 
indebtedness  on  it,  and  there  is  nothing  to  show  for  it,  and  the  only  thing  in 
sight  for  the  hoys  is  what  little  money  there  is  in  the  treasury ; and  if  the  in- 
junction suit  has  been  properly  brought,  I am  going  to  bring  this  money,  by 
placing  it  in  the  hands  of  a receiver,  nearer  to  the  court,  in  order  that  it  may 
he  looked  after , and  throw  protection  around  the  city  treasurer  or  receiver. 

In  the  manner  and  upon  the  grounds  stated,  Judge  Botkin,  in  open,  fla- 
grant and  positive  violation  of  the  law,  brought  the  city’s  money  “nearer  the 


THE  BOTKIN  TRIAL . 


255 


court,”  and  then,  having  first  advised  one  or  more  of  the  councilmen  to  em- 
ploy Mr.  W.  P.  Hackney  to  defend  them  in  both  the  civil  and  criminal  actions 
brought  against  them,  delayed  the  examination  or  trial  of  the  criminal  case 
until  Mr.  Hackney  could  reach  Springfield.  On  Mr.  Hackney’s  arrival  at 
Springfield  he  met  the  mayor  and  councilmen,  and  made  a contract  by  which 
they  were  to  pay  him  $4,000  to  defend  them.  He  then  arranged  with  the 
county  attorney  (so  he  testified  himself)  to  have  both  actions  dismissed;  after 
which  the  mayor  and  council  issued  to  him  a city  warrant  for  the  $4,000  at- 
torney fee,  which  warrant  Judge  Botkin  approved  and  ordered  paid  by  the 
receiver,  and  the  same  was  paid  that  same  night.  Thus  $4,000  of  the  city’s 
money  was  brought  much  “nearer  the  court”  by  finding  its  way  from  the 
court’s  receiver  to  the  pocket  of  the  court’s  friend  Hackney.  The  court  also 
allowed  Mr.  John  H.  Pitzer  $250  out  of  the  city  money  for  assisting  the  county 
attorney  in  prosecuting  the  two  suits  against  the  mayor  and  councilmen  (not 
for  defending  them);  and  the  court  allowed  two  other  attorneys  $500  for  as- 
sisting the  county  attorney  in  prosecuting  (not  defending)  the  mayor  and 
councilmen  in  those  two  suits  — both  of  which  were  settled  by  Mr.  Hackney 
and  the  county  attorney  as  soon  as  it  was  known  that  the  money  was  “near 
enough  to  the  court”  to  be  disbursed  by  its  “receiver”  on  the  order  of  Judge 
Botkin,  and  the  court  also  allowed  Receiver  Adams  $500  out  of  the  city  money 
in  his  hands,  for  doing  nothing  — thus  robbing  the  treasury  of  Springfield  of 
four  sums  of  money,  aggregating  $5,250,  without  one  single  legal  or  moral 
excuse.  The  agreement  made  by  Mr.  Hackney  and  the  county  attorney,  that 
the  two  fcuits  against  the  mayor  and  councilmen  should  be  dismissed,  was  car- 
ried out.  Not  an  hour’s  work  was  done  in  or  about  either  suit  after  that 
agreement;  and  the  criminal  action  was  dismissed  at  once,  and  the  civil  ac- 
tion at  the  term  next  ensuing.  The  “protection,”  which  the  city  of  Spring- 
field  had  “thrown  around”  it  and  its  money  by  the  action  of  Judge  Botkin 
and  his  “receiver,”  was  the  protection  which  the  hungry  lion  gives  to  the  ten- 
der lamb.  There  was  not  wanting  a single  element  of  proof  — of  proof  over- 
whelming and  conclusive  — that  the  city  of  Springfield  was  systematically 
robbed  of  more  than  $5,000,  knowingly  and  purposely,  by  Judge  Botkin  and 
his  confederates.  And  yet  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  sitting  for  his 
trial  on  impeachment  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  failed  to  convict  him. 

Fellow  citizens,  you  may  well  ask  how  this  result  was  reached.  We  will  en- 
deavor to  explain.  The  Senate  is  composed  of  forty  members,  and  under 
the  constitution  it  requires  the  votes  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  elected, 
voting  in  the  affirmative,  to  eonvict.  It  was  therefore  necessary  for  the  Board 
of  Managers  to  secure  twenty- seven  votes  to  convict  on  any  article.  One  Sen- 
ator has  resigned  — so,  if  the  respondent  could  obtain  and  hold  the  votes  of 
thirteen  Senators,  no  conviction  was  possible.  Only  thirty-five  Senators  were 


256 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK.  . 


present  when  the  vote  was  taken,  and  of  this  number  nine  votes  for  the  re- 
spondent would  prevent  a conviction.  Of  these  nine  votes,  he  was  assured  at 
the  outset  of  five  noisy  partisans,  who,  oblivious  of  their  oaths  to  “faithfully 
and  impartially  try  the  case,  and  do  justice  according  to  the  law  and  evi- 
dence,” were  ready  to  exhibit,  and  did  exhibit  their  intense  partisan  determi- 
nation to  acquit  Judge  Botkin,  regardless  of  the  law  and  evidence  — and  right 
royally  they  stood  and  voted  together.  To  recruit  and  increase  this  partisan 
band  became  the  daily  and  hourly  task  of  personal  and  political  friends  of 
the  respondent.  Senators  whose  sense  of  honor  and  justice  compelled  them 
to  arrive  at  the  determination  to  vote  for  conviction  were  bullied  and  threat- 
ened. All  sorts  of  influence,  political  and  otherwise,  was  brought  to  bear  to 
acquit  this  corrupt  and  oppressive  drunken  tyrant;  and  well  did  they  succeed. 
But  be  it  said  to  the  honor  of  the  State,  that  notwithstanding  all  this,  there 
were  yet  found  in  Israel  eighteen  righteous  men  who  could  not  be  persuaded, 
bullied  or  bribed  to  violate  their  senatorial  oaths!  All  honor  to  these  eigh- 
teen upright  men!  The  votes  of  those  eighteen  Senators,  a majority  of  the 
Senators  voting,  and  of  whom  seventeen  were  Republicans,  justified  the 
course  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  impeaching  Judge  Botkin.  Al- 
though the  State  failed  to  secure  the  two-thirds  vote  necessary  to  a legal 
conviction,  yet  the  majority  vote  secured  was  equal  to  a moral  conviction. 

The  official  report  of  the  trial  will  soon  be  issued  by  the  public  printer.  It 
will  fill  two  large  volumes.  We  are  confident  that  it  will  fully  justify  the  ac- 
tion of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  will  furnish  abundant  proof  that 
the  Board  of  Managers,  laying  aside  all  partisan  feeling  or  prejudice,  entered 
upon  the  duties  assigned  them  and  honestly  and  impartially  discharged  such 
duty  to  the  best  of  their  ability;  and  to  the  candid  and  intelligent  judgment 
of  the  people  of  Kansas,  regardless  of  party  ties  or  sympathies,  we  submit 
the  account  of  our  stewardship. 

A.  N.  Whittington,  Chairman , Lincoln  county. 

W.  H.  Mitchell,  Reno  county. 

Geo.  H.  Coulson,  Harper  county. 

Wm.  C.  Webb,  Shawnee  county. 

J.  B.  Coons,  Miami  county. 


Topeka,  May  28,  1891. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


POLITICAL  METHODS. 

Hutchinson  Forged  Resolutions. — On  the  24th  of  February,  1891,  the 
editors  of  Populist  newspapers  met  at  Hutchinson  and  formed  a State  asso- 
ciation, with  Senator  W.  A.  Peffer  as  president  and  Dr.  S.  McLallin  as  secre- 
tary-treasurer. They  also  adopted  a series  of  resolutions,  among  which  was 
the  following: 

“ Resolved , That  we  pledge  ourselves  to  the  support  of  every  measure  that 
shall  tend  to  render  justice  to  the  old  soldiers  by  way  of  service  pensions,  and 
making  the  money  in  which  they  were  paid  while  in  the  service  equal  to  that 
which  was  paid  to  the  bondholder,  independent  of  party  affiliation,  as  we 
fully  believe  legislation  relating  to  soldiers  should  be  effected  independently 
of  politics,  and  we  condemn  any  and  all  movements  of  old  soldiers  as  a polit- 
ical organization.” 

It  was  simply  a protest  of  old  soldier  members  of  the  association  against 
the  violation  of  rule  XI,  (G.  A.  R.  rules,)  which  reads  as  follows: 

“No  officer  or  comrade  of  the  Grand  Army  of  the  Republic  shall  in  any 
manner  use  this  organization  for  partisan  purposes,  and  no  discussion  of 
partisan  questions  shall  be  permitted  at  any  of  its  meetings,  nor  shall  any 
nomination  for  political  office  be  made.” 

Two  weeks  later,  the  Interior-Herald , never  heard  of  before  outside  of  Reno 
county,  comes  out  with  a forged  resolution  considerably  longer  than  the 
above,  and  brazenly  swears  the  association  passed  this  forgery  of  his,  which 
deliberately  and  wantonly  abused  all  old  soldiers.  Republican  newspapers, 
from  the  Capital  up  to  some  reputable  papers  east  and  west,  copied  the  for- 
gery, with  scathing  comments,  which  if  genuine,  would  all  have  been  deserved, 
and  more  too.  This  denunciation  of  the  K.  R.  P.  A.  brought  Dr.  McLallin, 
the  secretary,  to  a determination*  to  make  an  example  of  the  forgers  for  the 
benefit  of  others  who  might  be  emboldened  in  crime  if  this  were  let  pass  un- 
noticed. 

Accordingly  he  visited  Hutchinson,  during  the  session  of  a soldiers’  reunion, 
and  secured  affidavits  denying  the  invention  of  Fletcher  Meredith.  Follow- 
ing is  one: 

State  of  Kansas,  Reno  County,  ss. 

Thomas  Robertson,  being  duly  sworn,  says:  He  is  a resident  of  Lincoln  town- 
ship, Reno  county,  Kansas;  that  he  was  present  at  the  Reform  press  meeting 
that  was  held  at  Hutchinson,  Kansas,  on  February  24,  1891;  that  the  resolu- 
tion printed  in  the  Interior- Herald  is  a forgery,  and  that  the  resolution  printed 

(357) 


258 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


in  the  Topeka  Advocate  is  the  one  that  was  passed,  and  the  only  one  bearing 
on  the  soldier  question.  Thomas  Robertson. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  29th  day  of  April,  1891. 

[seal.]  R.  J.  Cannell,  Notary  Public. 

(Commission  expires  October  14, 1894.) 

This  is  selected  at  random  from  fifteen  similar  affidavits.  There  are  also 
several  letters  from  prominent  persons,  in  the  same  vein.  We  append  that  of 
Hon.  John  Severance,  then  mayor  of  Hutchinson: 

Plevna,  Kas.,  April  20, 1891. 

Mr.  S.  McLallin , Secretary  Kansas  Reform  Press  Association: 

Dear  Sib — Yours  of  the  17th  inst.  received  here  to-day.  I was  not  present 
at  all  of  the  sessions  of  the  Reform  Press  Association,  in  Hutchinson,  but  was 
present  when  the  “soldier  resolutions”  were  read  and  adopted.  I did  not  un- 
derstand from  the  reading  of  the  resolutions  that  there  was  anything  in  them 
that  reflected  on  soldiers  in  any  way,  or  that  any  soldier  need  object  to.  Sena- 
tor-elect  Peffer  commenced  his  speech  immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the 
resolutions,  and  in  his  opening  referred  to  and  substantially  indorsed  the  reso- 
lutions. The  Senator  used  strong  language,  showing  that  the  Government 
can  hardly  do  too  much  for  the  soldier.  He  discussed  at  considerable  length 
a plan  by  which  the  Government  can,  as  he  claimed,  pay  liberal  pensions,  set- 
tle with  the  soldiers,  and  take  this  whole  business  out  of  politics.  There  was 
certainly  nothing  in  the  speech  which  was  not  highly  complimentary  to  the 
soldiers  of  the  country.  Respectfully,  John  Severance. 

Besides  the  15  sworn  statements  and  4 letters  from  Hon.  John  Severance, 
Hon.  W.  A.  Peffer,  J.  L.  Brady,  ( News  reporter,)  and  R.  J.  Cannell,  (attorney,) 
there  was  obtained  the  following  from  old  soldiers  themselves: 

“We,  the  undersigned  ex-soldiers,  do  hereby  certify  that  we  were  present  at 
at  the  meeting  of  the  Reform  Press  Association  held  at  Hutchinson,  Kansas, 
February  24,  1891,  and  that  no  such  resolution  as  published  in  the  Interior- 
Herald , as  purporting  to  have  been  adopted  by  that  association,  was  offered 
to  said  association  or  by  said  association  adopted. 

“Witness  our  hands,  this  28th  day  of  April,  1891. 

W.  B.  Holmes,  Co.  I,  5th  Regt.,  Cal.  Vols.,  Hutchinson,  Kas. 

Robert  Laughlin,  Co.  D,  120th  Regt.,  Ind.  Yol.  Inf.,  Haven,  Kas. 

D.  Shaw,  Co.  H,  2d  Heavy  Artillery,  Hutchinson,  Kas. 

F.  D.  Hornbakeb,  Co.  I,  145th  Ind.  Yols. 

Daniel  Giberson,  Co.  A,  49th  111*.  Yols.,  Castleton,  Kas. 

O.  S.  Coffin,  General  Staff  U.  S.  Yols.,  Hutchinson,  Kas. 

Miner  Crippin,  Co.  C,  113th  O.  Yol.  Inf.,  Hutchinson,  Kas. 

T.  J.  Pugh,  Corporal  Co.  I,  7th  Ind.  Yols. 

R.  Wolf,  Co.  C,  193d  O.  Yol.  Inf.,  Hutchinson,  Kas.” 

It  would  seem  as  if  this  vile  leper  would  desist  from  a continual  publication 
of  his  own  shame  and  disgrace,  by  repeating  his  forgery,  but,  lost  to  all  sense 
of  decency,  he  continues  to  herald  it  forth,  to  be  copied  by  papers  unac- 
quainted with  him  — all  who  know  him  refuse  credence  to  anything  he  may 
father.  The  only  excuse  for  including  mention  of  it  here  is  that  the  brutal 
methods  of  Republican  managers  may  become  thoroughly  known  by  all  people. 


HENRY  BOOTH’S  RECORD . 


259 


Other  Forged  Resolutions. — Following  closely  upon  this  came  a series 
of  forged  resolutions,  purporting  to  report  disaffection  among  the  Alliance 
membership  in  Cloud  county,  Kansas.  These  did  no  damage  at  home — they 
were  not  intended  for  home  consumption . 

What  for,  then? 

The  Southern  States  of  Kentucky  and  Mississippi  were  just  entering  upon 
exciting  campaigns,  in  which  Alliance  principles  were  likely  to  figure  largely. 
A man  in  prominent  position  had  formerly  written  a letter  to  the  Southern 
States,  threatening  that  if  they  did  not  adopt  the  reforms  demanded,  and  or- 
ganize at  once  the  Populist  Party,  that  the  people  of  the  North  would 
abandon  their  independence  in  political  matters,  and  return  to  the  wallow 
they  had  left.  This  last  forgery  was  intended,  and  used  for  that  purpose , to 
scare  back  to  the  old  party  any  independent  Democrat  who  contemplated 
shaking  off  his  partisan  allegiance.  This  is  only  one  of  the  tricks  that  will 
be  resorted  to  to  deceive  the  people. 

“Eternal  vigilance  is  the  price  of  liberty.” 

Watch  the  devils,  and  report  to  the  editorial  reformers  any  schemes  you 
may  unearth. 

“Forewarned  is  forearmed.” 

Chairman  Campbell  [not]  Intimidated. — The  following  extract  from  a 
newspaper  was  sent  to  Mr.  W.  M.  Cambell,  the  chairman  of  the  Railroad  Com- 
mittee, and  he  was  asked  of  the  truth  of  it: 

“During  the  session  of  the  last  Legislature,  a conductor  on  the  Santa  Fe 
road  came  to  the  chairman  of  the  House  Railroad  Committee,  and  told  him 
flatly  that  if  he  reported  the  bill  that  the  committee  had  prepared,  he  would 
never  hold  office  again  in  Kansas.  And  yet  Governor  Humphrey,  knowing 
this  fact,  afterward  appointed  him  one  of  the  railroad  commissioners.” 

Following  is  a portion  of  his  reply: 

Antrim,  Stafford  County,  Kas.,  ) 
June  12,  1891.  J 

Prof  C.  Vincent:  Your  letter  at  hand.  In  answer  will  say,  that  during  the 
pendency  of  House  bill  743,  Mr.  Mitchell  came  to  me  in  the  House,  and  gave 
me  to  distinctly  understand  that  he  was  at  the  head  of  40,000  railroad  em- 
ployes, and  if  I wanted  office  again  I had  better  let  up  on  legislation  touching 
the  reduction  of  freight  rates.  I cannot  now  give  his  exact  language,  but  it 
was  very  emphatic.  This  is  the  gist  of  it:  If  I wanted  to  hold  office  again,  I 
must  not  urge  legislation  for  the  reduction  of  freight  rates.  You  can  use  this 
as  you  may  desire.  Yours  truly,  * W.  M.  Campbell. 


HENRY  BOOTH’S  RECORD. 

In  Chapter  II,  Mr.  Kimball  quotes  Henry  Booth’s  testimony  in  reference  to 
the  whereabouts  of  C.  A.  Henrie,  on  October  18,  1888.  This  raises  the  ques- 
tion of  Mr.  Booth’s  credibility  as  a witness,  ge  belongs  to  a party  whose 


260 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


leaders  boldly  claim  they  lie  for  political  effect,  and  this  is  a political  investi- 
gation. If  Mr.  Booth  is  found  unworthy  of  trust  in  one  place,  it  certainly  will 
affect  his  credibility  in  such  a case  as  the  Coffey ville  dynamite  investigation. 

Henry  Booth  was  in  the  United  States  land  office  at  Larned,  Kansas,  prior 
to  1885.  The  crookedness  of  his  deals  was  so  notorious  that  a Republican  in- 
spector (Hobbs)  was  sent  out  by  a Republican  administration  (Arthur’s)  to 
investigate.  A portion  of  the  records  were  burned  in  the  office,  it  is  believed 
to  cover  his  tracks  and  hinder  or  prevent  an  examination  into  the  condition 
of  the  office.  After  the  report  recommending  removal  was  filed,  Mr.  Booth 
was  kept  in  office  (supposably  by  the  influence  of  Senator  P.  B.  Plumb,  with 
whom  he  was  on  intimate  terms)  until  after  the  close  of  President  Arthur’s 
term,  when  he  sent  in  his  resignation.  The  record  was  then  looked  up  and 
he  was  not  allowed  to  resign,  but  was  removed  for  cause.  Following  are  some 
newspaper  comments  on  this  matter,  from  a weekly  newspaper  published  in 
Larned  at  the  time  of  the  irregularities: 

From  the  Larned  Weekly  Optic , of  August  8,  1884: 

“It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  Henry  Booth  can  ‘stand  off’  Mr.  Hobbs, 
who  is  here  at  present  looking  up  the  crookedness  of  his  office,  like  he  has  all 
former  Government  officials  sent  here  for  that  purpose. 

“There  is  not  a more  corrupt  official  in  the  employ  of  the  Government  to- 
day than  Henry  Booth,  and  if  Mr.  Hobbs  does  his  duty  like  a man,  as  we  be- 
lieve he  will,  he  will  find  ample  evidence  to  justify  this  opinion. 

“His  official  career  has  been  one  long  series  of  pilferings  from  the  people, 
in  the  shape  of  excessive  charges,  etc.” 

From  the  Larned  Weekly  Optic , of  August  15, 1884: 

“Henry  Booth’s  stealings  from  the  people  of  this  land  district  during  the 
last  year  are  variously  estimated  at  from  fifteen  hundred  to  five  thousand  dol- 
lars. 

“He  hopes  to  retain  his  position  by  refunding  this  stolen  money,  but  it  re- 
mains to  be  seen  whether  the  administration  will  keep  a convicted  thief  in  its 
employ. 

“If  honesty  is  one  of  the  essentials  in  the  civil  service,  Booth  will  have  to  go.” 

Another  from  the  same  paper,  same  date: 

“A  Public  Plunderer. — As  predicted  in  our  last  issue,  the  investigation 
into  the  crookedness  of  Henry  Booth,  receiver  of  the  Larned  land  office,  by 
Special  Agent  Hobbs,  has  stamped  Mr.  Booth  as  a public  plunderer  of  no  small 
magnitude,  and  his  removal  from  the  office  he  has  so  long  used  to  cover  his 
peculations  and  public  robbery  is  no  longer  a question  of  doubt.  Special 
Agent  Hobbs  seems  to  be  doing  his  whole  duty,  and  the  boasted  political  in- 
fluence of  Mr.  Booth  cannot  save  him  from  disgraceful  removal  from  the  pub- 
lic service  on  the  charge  of  extortion  and  peculation. 

“His  inordinate  and  selfish  greed  has  led  him  into  dishonest  ways  and  prac- 
tices that,  when  publicly  known,  will  not  only  astonish  his  friends,  but  will 
cause  men  whom  he  has  ruthlessly  followed  with  his  malice  and  hate  to  pity 
him  in  his  ignominious  abasement. 

“He  has  carried  forward  his  system  of  public  robbery  with  a high  hand  and 


HENRY  BOOTH'S  RECORD, 


261 


an  unscrupulous  purpose  — his  extortions  from  the  people  aggregating  thou- 
sands of  dollars,  for  which  he  will  be  called  upon  by  the  department  to  make 
restitution  to  the  people  whom  he  has  robbed. 

“In  fact,  he  has  already  commenced  to  ‘refund,’  under  the  stern  mandate 
of  executive  authority,  the  money  he  has  illegally  extorted  from  men  whom 
he  has  systematically  robbed  in  the  matter  of  excessive  and  illegal  fees,  and 
it  is  believed  that  all  or  nearly  all  will  be  received  from  him  or  his  bondsmen. 

“The  investigation  has  developed  that  he  has  charged  as  high  as  four  hun- 
dred per  cent,  in  excess  of  legal  fees  in  hundreds  of  cases,  for  which  he  has 
made  no  account  to  the  Government,  and  for  which  his  removal  from  office  is 
made  mandatory  under  section  2242,  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States, 
which  provides  as  follows: 

“‘No  register  or  receiver  shall  receive  any  compensation  out  of  the  treasury  for  past  serv- 
ices, who  has  charged  or  received  illegal  fees;  and  on  satisfactory  proof  that  either  of  such 
officers  has  charged  or  received  fees  or  other  rewards  not  authorized  by  law,  he  shall  be  forth- 
with removed  from  office.’  ” 

“Not  satisfied  with  the  large  salary  legally  allowed  him,  Mr.  Booth  has  wholly 
disregarded  this  provision  of  law  to  advance  his  own  pecuniary  interests, 
seemingly  reckless  of  consequences,  and  holding  at  naught,  alike  honor,  his 
official  oath,  and  the  rights  of  the  public.  He  should  be  removed  immedi- 
ately, and  an  honest  man  appointed  to  his  place.” 

From  the  Larned  Eagle- Optic  of  July  1-7,  1885: 

“A  Disgbaced  Public  Offices. — The  Hon.  Henry  Booth,  who  has  served 
the  people  of  this  land  district  honorably  and  well  as  receiver  of  public 
moneys  at  the  Larned  land  office,  and  who,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  he  is  a 
Republican,  now  awaits  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Bickle’s  ( his  successor)  commis- 
sion, when  he  will  step  down  and  out.” 

Referring  to  the  above  paragraph,  the  Kinsley  Mercury  had  this  to  say: 

“Henry  Booth  does  not  ‘step  down  and  out’  because  he  is  a Republican, 
but  because  he  has  been  detected  and  exposed  as  a dishonest  public  official. 
He  ‘stepped  down  and  out’  under  charges  of  the  most  serious  character.  In- 
stead of  ‘serving  the  people  of  this  land  district  honorably  and  well  as 
receiver  of  public  money,’  he  has  abused  his  public  trust  and  violated  his 
official  oath  by  systematically  robbing  and  swindling  the  public  in  collecting 
and  appropriating  to  his  own  use  illegal  and  excessive  fees,  as  receiver  of 
public  money. 

“In  short,  he  has  been  kicked  out  of  the  office  he  has  dishonored  and  dis- 
graced upon  charges  made  and  sustained  upon  investigation,  and  stands 
before  the  public  to-day  as  a convicted  but  unimprisoned  criminal.  His 
retention  in  office  for  the  past  year,  through  the  influence  of  the  political 
boss  whose  pliant  tool  he  was,  has  been  a public  scandal  and  disgrace.  When 
detected  and  exposed  by  the  Optic  a year  ago,  he  made  restitution  to  the  vic- 
timized public  of  a portion  of  the  fees  illegally  extorted,  but,  if  we  are  cor- 
rectly informed,  still  has  a large  amount  of  money  which  he  has  illegally 
extorted  from  the  people,  and  which  he  has  not  restored.  As  we  predicted 
months  ago,  Henry  Booth  retires  from  public  office  dishonored  and  disgraced; 
guilty  as  a public  officer  of  extorting  excessive  and  illegal  fees,  and  using 
public  property  for  private  use. 

“He  ‘steps  down’  and  into  his  political  grave  unhonored,  unwept,  and  un- 
sung, his  past  public  record  hanging  as  a mill-stone  about  his  neck,  an  incu- 
bus never  to  be  removed.” 


—16 


262 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


The  name  of  Henry  Booth  has  been,  in  Republican  circles,  a sort  of  magic. 
He  has  been  called  the  man  of  destiny,  and  he  was  held  up  as 'a  shining  exam- 
ple for  young  men  to  follow.  We  have  taken  some  trouble  to  look  up  his  rec- 
ord, and  have  partially  succeeded,  not  because  we  owe  him  any  personal  ill 
will,  but  because  he  was  chairman  of  the  Republican  Central  Committee  in  the 
fall  of  1888  — the  dynamite  campaign.  He,  Hutchins,  Henrie,  Greer,  et  al., 
were  the  principal  conspirators,  the  true  inside  details  of  which  conspiracy 
will  probably  never  be  known,  for  Republican  managers  never  tell  on  each 
other. 


“AGE-OF-CONSENT ” BILL. 

For  use  in  succeeding  Senatorial  elections,  we  here  insert  the  (in)famous 
bill  that  passed  the  Senate  in  1889,  to  give  the  bestial  propensities  of  Senators 
and  their  friends  satisfaction  without  becoming  amenable  to  the  “law.” 

[Senate  bill  No.  35,  passed  by  the  Senate,  1889,  but  defeated  by  the  House.]  * 

An  Act  relating  to  offenses  against  the  persons  of  individuals,  and  amenda- 
tory of  and  supplemental  to  chapter  150  of  the  Laws  of  Kansas  of  1887, 
approved  March  4,  1887. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Kansas: 

Section  1.  That  section  1 of  chapter  153  of  the  Laws  of  Kansas  of  1887,  ap- 
proved March  4,  1887,  being  an  act  entitled  “An  act  regulating  crimes  and 
punishments,  amendatory  of  sections  31  and  32  of  chapter  31  of  the  General 
Statutes  of  1868,”  is  hereby  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

Section  1.  Every  male  person  who  shall  forcibly  ravish  any  female  person 
under  fifteen  years  of  age,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  rape,  and  shall  upon  con- 
viction, be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  for  a term  of  not 
less  than  ten  years  nor  more  than  twenty-five  years;  and  any  male  person 
who  shall  forcibly  ravish  any  woman  of  the  age  of  fifteen  years  or  upwards, 
shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  rape,  and  upon  conviction,  shall  be  punished  by  im- 
prisonment in  the  penitentiary  for  a term  of  not  less  than  five  years  nor 
more  than  twenty  years. 

Sec.  2.  Every  male  person  who,  without  forcibly  ravishing,  shall  carnally 
know  any  female  person  of  good  repute  (other  than  his  wife)  over  the  age  of 
twelve  years,  and  under  the  age  of  sixteen  (16)  years,  shall  be  deemed  guilty 
of  rape,  and  upon  conviction,  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  peni- 
tentiary for  a term  not  less  than  five  years  nor  more  than  ten  years. 

Sec.  3.  No  unmarried  female  person  under  twelve  years  of  age  can  consent 
to  sexual  intercourse;  nor  is  it  competent  in  any  prosecution  for  rape  to  ad- 
mit evidence  of  the  ill-repute  of  any  female  person  who  is  under  the  age  of 
twelve  years,  and  every  male  person  who  shall  carnally  know  any  female  per- 
son under  the  age  of  twelve  years  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  rape,  and  upon 
conviction  thereof,  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  of 
the  State  for  a term  of  not  less  than  fifteen  years  nor  more  than  thirty  years. 


A GE-  OF-  CONSENT  BILL. 


263 


Seo.  2.  Section  2 of  said  chapter  150  of  the  Laws  of  Kansas,  1887,  approved 
March  4,  1887,  is  hereby  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

Seo.  4.  Every  male  person  who  shall  administer  to  any  female  person 
any  substance,  liquid,  or  (any)  potion,  by  inhalation  or  otherwise,  shall  pro- 
duce stupor,  or  imbecility  of  any  kind,  or  weakness  of  body,  so  as  to  prevent 
effectual  resistance,  or  who  shall  cause  or  procure  to  be  administered  to  any 
female  person,  any  substance,  liquid  or  potion,  and  shall  by  means  thereof 
have  and  obtain  criminal  knowledge  of  any  woman,  or  enable  any  other  per- 
son to  have  such  knowledge,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  rape,  and  upon  convic- 
tion thereof,  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  for  a term 
of  not  less  than  five  years  nor  more  than  twenty  years. 

Sec.  3.  That  said  original  sections  1 and  2 of  said  chapter  150  of  the  Laws 
of  Kansas  of  1887,  and  all  acts  and  parts  of  acts  in  conflict  with  this  act,  are 
hereby  repealed. 

Seo.  4.  This  act  shall  take  effect  and  be  in  force  from  and  after  its  publica- 
tion in  the  official  State  paper. 

Below  will  be  found  the  list  of  the  State  Senators  who  voted  to  reduce  the 
age  of  consent  from  18  to  12  years.  All  women,  and  the  friends  of  women 
everywhere,  well  know  that  this  was  an  infamous  vote: 

Yeas. 

Senator  BENTLEY,  Republican,  Sedgwick  county. 

Senator  BERRY,  Republican,  Marshall  county. 

Senator  BUCHAN,  Republican,  Wyandotte  county. 

Senator  CARROLL,  Democrat,  Leavenworth  county. 

Senator  CARROLL,  Republican,  Miami  county. 

Senator  ELLISTON,  Republican,  Atchison  county. 

Senator  EMERY,  Republican,  Nemaha  county. 

Senator  G-ILLETT,  Republican,  Kingman  county. 

Senator  HARKNESS,  Republican,  Clay  county. 

Senator  HAYES,  Republican,  Osborne  county. 

Senator  HOWARD,  Republican,  Douglas  county. 

Senator  JOHNSON,  Republican,  Jefferson  county. 

Senator  KELLEY,  Republican,  Crawford  county. 

Senator  KELLY,  Republican,  McPherson  county. 

Senator  KIMBALL,  Republican,  Labette  county. 

Senator  KIRKPATRICK,  Republican,  Wilson  county. 

Senator  LOCKARD,  Republican,  Norton  county. 

Senator  McTAGGART,  Republican,  Montgomery  county. 

Senator  MARTIN,  Republican,  Bourbon  county. 

Senator  MECHEM,  Republican,  Jewell  county. 

Senator  MOHLER,  Republican,  Saline  county. 

Senator  MOODY,  Republican,  Linn  county. 


264 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Yeas  ( continued ). 

Senator  NORTON,  Republican,  Cherokee  county. 
Senator  OSBORN,  Republican,  Shawnee  county. 
Senator  SCHILLING-,  Republican,  Brown  county. 
Senator  SENIOR,  Republican,  Coffey  county. 

Senator  WILSON,  Republican,  Ellis  county. 

Nays. 

Senator  CHAPMAN,  Republican,  Barton  county. 
Senator  FORNEY,  Republican,  Sumner  county. 
Senator  PRICE,  Republican,  Clark  county. 

Senator  RANKIN,  Republican,  Osage  county. 

Senator  ROE,  Republican,  Elk  county. 

Senator  SWEARNGIDT,  Republican,  Cloud  county. 
Senator  TUCKER,  Republican,  Greenwood  county. 
Senator  WOODWARD,  Republican,  Woodson  county. 
Senator  WRIGHT,  Republican,  Davis  county. 

Absent  or  not  voting . 

Senator  KING,  Republican,  Cowley  county. 

Senator  MURDOCK,  Republican,  Butler  county. 
Senator  RUSH,  Republican,  Pawnee  county. 


CHAPTER  V. 


MORTGAGE  INDEBTEDNESS. 

So  much  has  been  said  about  the  mortgage  indebtedness  of  Kansas,  that  a 
few  authentic  facts  may  not  come  amiss.  We  have  not  taken  any  floating 
newspaper  reports,  but  for  this  purpose  have  selected  only  those  whose  accu- 
racy is  unquestioned,  all  accompanied  by  the  names  of  the  parties  compiling 
them. 

Mabshall  County  Mobtgages. — Mr.  J.  B.  Winkler  furnishes  the  following 
statement: 

Maeysville,  Kansas,  January  1,  1891. 

The  following  is  a correct  statement  of  the  mortgaged  indebtedness  of 


Marshall  county,  Kansas,  to  the  above  date: 

Total  indebtedness $2,872,370 

The  assessed  valuation  of  the  property  mortgaged 1,270,135 

The  average  amount  of  the  mortgages 942.17 

Whole  number  of  farm  mortgages  upon  the  records 2,518 

Number  of  foreclosure  sales  during  the  last  five  years ....  80 

Number  of  foreclosure  suits  now  pending 22 

Total  number  mortgages  released  during  past  five  years..  . 2,478 

Number  actually  released 151 

Number  released  by  foreclosures 51 

Number  mortgages  released  by  conveyancing  to  grantees.  . 21 


I,  J.  B.  Winkler,  abstracter  in  and  for  Marshall  county  and  State  of  Kan- 
sas, do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a true  and  correct  statement  of  the 
total  mortgaged  indebtedness  and  assessed  valuation  of  the  property  mort- 
gaged therein,  and  releases  of  mortgages,  and  as  further  stated  herein. 

Witness  my  hand,  this  6th  day  of  February,  1891. 

[seal.]  J.  B.  Winkles,  Abstracter. 


Miami  County  Mobtgages. — Mr.  J.  P.  Dismore  furnishes  the  following 


statement: 

I have  to  present  the  following  report,  viz.: 

Total  number  farm  mortgages  in  Miami  county 2,205 

Total  number  city  and  town  mortgages  now  in  force 922 

Total  amount  farm  mortgages  now  in  force $2,092,699  00 

Total  amount  all  town  and  city  mortgages  now  in  force 508,094  00 

Total  value  all  real  estate  mortgages  in  Miami  county 2,600,793  00 

Total  assessed  valuation  mortgaged  real  estate  in  county 2,117,632  80 

Average  amount  farm  mortgages 949  06 

Average  amount  town  or  city  mortgages 616  15 

(265) 


266 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Total  amount  chattel  mortgage  indebtedness  now  in  force $489,178  83 

Total  assessed  valuation  all  property  in  county,  including  rail- 
ways, water-works,  etc • 4,534,605  78 

Total  assessed  valuation  of  railroads,  exclusive  of  the  Pullman 

Car  Company ! 698,187  39 

Actual  assessed  valuation  real  estate  and  personal  property. . . . 3,836,418  39 

Total  indebtedness  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

Farm  mortgages $2,092,699  00 

Town  and  city  mortgages 568,094  00 

Chattel  mortgages 489,178  83 

Notes  in  bank  (estimated) 757,000  00 

Total $3,906,971  83 

Excess  of  indebtedness  over  assessed  valuation,  without  men- 
tioning personal  or  floating  indebtedness,  other  than  those 
recorded  above $70,553  44 


J.  P.  Dismobe,  Abstracter , Paola,  Kansas. 


Lyon  County  Moktgages. — The  following  is  an  official  report  of  a commit- 
tee appointed  by  Lyon  County  Alliance: 

“On  the  14th  day  of  August,  1890,  at  a regular  meeting  of  the  Lyon  County 
Alliance,  J.  L.  Williams  and  T.  S.  Gallagher  were  appointed  to  make  a correct 
abstract  of  the  mortgage  indebtedness  of  Lyon  county,  Kansas;  and  on  the 
6th  day  of  September  said  committee  made  their  report  to  the  County  Alli- 
ance, giving  a full  and  complete  statement  of  their  work  and  summary  of 
mortgage  indebtedness.  The  report  was  received  and  ordered  published  in 
the  Emporia  Standard , but  not  having  been  published  in  full,  was  sent  to  the 
Nonconformist.  This  committee  spent  fourteen  days,  each  of  ten  hours’ 
length,  hard  work,  examining  the  county  records;  and  when  taking  into  ac- 
count the  fact  that  Lyon  county  is  claimed  to  be,  and  probably  is,  one  of  the 
most  prosperous  in  the  State,  according  to  age,  location,  and  population,  this 
report,  all  of  which  is  true,  appears  terrible.  J.  L.  Williams.” 

Number  of  uncanceled  real-estate  mortgages,  from  January  1, 1885,  to  Sep- 
tember 1,  1890:  First  mortgages,  4,555;  second  mortgages,  915;  total,  5,470; 
encumbering  3,376  town  and  city  lots  and  329,432  acres  of  farming  and  other 
lands,  and  calling  for  the  sum  of  $3,724,630  of  first  mortgages,  and  for  the 
sum  of  $186,863  of  second  mortgages  on  farming  and  other  lands;  and  for 
the  sum  of  $1,198,798,  first  mortgages  on  town  and  city  lots;  making  a total  of 
$5,110,291  of  uncanceled  real-estate  mortgages  from  January  1,  1885,  to  Sep- 
tember 1,  1890,  a period  of  five  years  and  eight  months.  Chattel  mortgages 
filed  for  record  from  January  1 to  September  1,  1890, 1,290;  number  of  same 
released  during  the  same  time,  179;  number  unreleased,  1,111;  calling  for  the 
sum  of  $478,369.  Whole  number  of  unsatisfied  mortages,  real  and  chattel, 
6,581;  amount  of  same,  $5,588,660. 


MORTGAGE  INDEBTEDNESS. 


267 


The  following  shows  the  percentage  of  indebtedness  to  assessed  valuation 


for  1890: 

Number  of  acres  of  uncultivated  lands 364,000 

Number  of  acres  of  cultivated  lands 141,673 


Total 505,673 

Assessed  valuation  of  lands $3,334,936 

Assessed  valuation  of  town  lots 1,790,896 

Assessed  valuation  of  personal  property 1,367,058 

Assessed  valuation  of  railroads 806,114 


Total $7,299,604 

Mortgaged  lands . 66  per  ct. 

Mortgaged  town  lots.'. 22  “ 

Ratio  of  indebtedness  to  total  assessed  valuation 76.25  “ 

Ratio  of  real-estate  mortgages  to  assessed  valuation 100  “ 

Ration  of  chattel  mortgages  to  assessed  valuation  of  personal 

property *. 34.25  “ 


Railroad  indebtedness  is  not  included  in  any  part  of  this  report. 

The  committee  made  the  following  statement  for  the  period  between  Janu- 
ary 1,  1880,  and  January  1,  1885,  no  part  of  which  is  taken  into  account  in  the 
foregoing  statement,  viz.:  Number  of  mortgages  uncanceled,  713;  amount, 
$367,183. 


Noah  Allen,  of  Wichita,  is  authority  for  the  statistics  from  the  following 
four  counties.  The  returns  are  not  in  detail,  being  taken  from  his  pocket 
memoranda  just  before  going  to  press,  and  hence  we  were  unable  to  secure 


the  itemized  statement: 

Sedgwick  County. — Farm  mortgages $4, 241^863  56 

City  mortgages 14,633,407  00 

Chattel  mortgages. 1,491,159  00 


Total $20,366,429  56 

During  the  three  years  prior  to  last  February,  there  were  2,512  mortgages 
foreclosed  in  Sedgwick  county: 

Haepeb  County. — Farm  mortgages $4,774,940  56 

Pbatt  County. — Farm  mortgages  (about) 2,700,000  00 

Mabion  County. — Farm  mortgages  (about) 4,000,000  00 


Summaby  of  real-estate  mortgages  as  above: 

Marshall  county $2,372,370  00  • 

Miami  county * 2,600,793  00 

Lyon  county 5,110,291  00 

Sedgwick  county  (farm  alone) 4,241,863  56 

Harper  county  “ “ 4,774,940  56 


268 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Pratt  county  (about) $2,700,000  00 

Marion  county  “ 4,000,000  00 


Total $25,800,258  12 


Average $3,685,751  16 

* 

Total  for  State  (106  counties) $390,689,622  96 


Owing  to  the  sparsely-settled  condition  of  the  west,  this  is  manifestly  not 
strictly  a fair  estimate  for  the  entire  State.  Deducting  for  this  cause  one- 
third,  and  we  still  have  for  the  mortgage  indebtedness  of  Kansas,  $260,459,- 
748.64. 

Official  Statement  of  Kansas  Mobtgage  Indebtedness,  Census  of  1890. — 
Since  making  the  above  estimate,  based  on  seven  counties,  the  census  report 
for  Kansas  indebtedness  has  been  published,  from  which  we  find  the  amount 
to  be  $235,485,108.00.  The  census  returns  also  show,  that  the  rate  of  in- 
terest ranges  from  ten  to  seventy  per  cent.  Of  course  the  higher  rates  are  not 
general,  and,  for  the  purposes  of  the  following  computation,  it  will  be  assumed 
that  the  rate  averages  eight  per  cent.  This  rate  will  give  an  annual  interest 
drain  from  real-estate  mortgages  alone  of  $18,838,808.64. 

To  pay  this  portion  of  Kansas’  interest  bills  in  wheat  at  70  cents  per  bushel 
requires  26,912,583.7  bushels.  At  400  bushels  per  car,  it  will  require  to  trans- 
port this  tribute  to  market  67,281+  cars.  At  25  cars  to  the  train,  it  will  neces- 
sitate the  use  of  2,691+  trains.  The  distance  from  San  Francisco  to  Chicago 
via  the  Santa  F6  railroad  is  2,557  miles.  Therefore,  if  the  interest  tribute  of 
Kansas,  on  her  real  estate  indebtedness  alone,  were  placed  in  wheat  as  above, 
and  the  trains  were  placed  one  mile  apart  on  the  track  for  safety,  a space  of 
track  would  be  occupied  from  San  Francisco  to  a point  134  miles  east  of  Chi- 
cago. 

Annual  Tribute  Measured  in  Corn. — The  same  annual  tribute  in  corn, 
at  25  cents  per  bushel,  would  amount  to  75,355,234.56  bushels;  at  400  bushels 
per  car,  188,388  cars.  Allowing  35  feet  for  a car  and  coupling,  we  have  over 
three  solid  train  loads  of  corn  across  Kansas  from  east  to  west.  Remember, 
this  is  only  the  interest  on  the  real-estate  mortgage  debts,  and  does  not  count 
that  on  railroad  bonds,  county  bonds,  city  bonds,  township  bonds,  chattel 
mortgages,  or  personal  indebtedness  represented  in  other  forms.  How  can 
Kansas  pay  her  interest  money  — to  say  nothing  of  principal? 

In  one  county  in  southeastern  Kansas,  a gentleman  made  inquiry  how  the 
mortgages  lifted  were  being  met.  He  ascertained  that  three  sources  con- 
tributed toward  the  cancellation  of  a considerable  number  of  mortgages  dur- 
ing the  summer  of  1891.  They  were  as  follows: 

1st.  Sums  received  for  arrears  of  pensions.  It  is  a very  noticeable  fact, 


SUB-TREASURY  SYSTEM. 


. 269 


that  ever  since  Kansas  became  a doubtful  Republican  State,  pensions  have 
been  pouring  in  to  her  citizen  old  soldiers  that  heretofore  could  get  no  notice 
paid  to  their  claims;  and  they  came  very  handy  with  which  to  pay  off  a 
mortgage,  so  the  Republican  press  and  speakers  may  herald  the  “good 
times”  abroad  in  “special  telegrams.” 

2d.  Legacies  from  deceased  friends. 

3d.  Foreclosure  proceedings,  ending  in  transfer  of  the  property. 

Not  a single  mortgage  in  that  county  was  lifted  with  the  proceeds  of  a crop 
from  the  land. 

The  suggestion  is  here  made  that  officers  of  the  party  committees  every- 
where ascertain  exactly  the  sources  from  which  payments  are  made  on  so- 
called  canceled  mortgages. 


SUB-TREASURY  SYSTEM. 

The  Sub-Treasury  Plan  is  now  attracting  such  universal  attention  and  com- 
ment, that  we  here  reproduce  the  report  of  the  committee  at  the  St.  Louis 
conference,  in  December,  1890,  as  follows: 

“We,  your  Committee  on  the  Monetary  System,  beg  to  submit  the  following 
report,  and  recommend  that  50,000  copies  of  this  report,  with  complete  argu- 
ments in  support  of  the  same,  be  published  and  distributed  to  the  members 
of  our  order  and  to  the  country,  under  the  supervision  of  the  National  Econo- 
mist provided  the  printing  and  distribution  shall  be  done  at  actual  cost  by 
said  journal,  to  be  paid  on  the  20th  day  of  November,  1890. 

C.  W.  Maoune. 

L.  L.  Polk. 

L.  F.  Livingston. 

W.  S.  Mobgan. 

H.  S.  P.  Ashby.” 

Report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Monetary  System.  — The  financial 
policy  of  the  General  Government  seems  to-day  to  be  peculiarly  adapted  to 
further  the  interests  of  the  speculative  class  at  the  expense  and  to  the  mani- 
fest detriment  of  the  productive  class,  and  while  there  are  many  forms  of  re- 
lief offered,  there  has  up  to  the  present  time  been  no  true  remedy  presented 
which  has  secured  a support  universal  enough  to  render  its  adoption  proba- 
ble. Neither  of  the  political  parties  offers  a remedy  adequate  to  bur  necessi- 
ties, and  the  two  parties  that  have  been  in  power  since  the  war  have  pursued 
practically  the  same  financial  policy.  The  situation  is  this:  The  most  desirable 
and  necessary  reform  is  one  that  will  adjust  the  financial  system  of  the  Gen- 
eral Government  so  that  its  provisions  cannot  be  utilized  by  a class,  which 
thereby  becomes  privileged,  and  is  in  consequence  contrary  to  the  genius  of 
our  Government,  and  which  is  to  day  the  principal  cause  of  the  depressed 
condition  of  agriculture.  Regardless  of  all  this,  the  political  parties  utterly 


270 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


ignore  these  great  evils,  and  refuse  to  remove  their  cause;  and  the  importuni- 
ties of  the  privileged  class  have,  no  doubt,  often  led  the  executive  and  legis- 
lative branches  of  the  Government  to  believe  that  the  masses  were  passive, 
and  reconciled  to  the  existence  of  this  system  whereby  a privileged  class  can, 
by  means  of  the  power  of  money  to  oppress,  exact  from  labor  all  that  it  pro- 
duces except  a bare  subsistence.  Since,  then,  it  is  the  most  necessary  of  all 
reforms,  and  receives  no  attention  from  any  of  the  prominent  political  par- 
ties, it  is  highly  appropriate  and  important  that  our  efforts  be  concentrated 
to  secure  the  needed  reform  in  this  direction,  provided  all  can  agree  upon  such 
measures.  Such  action  will  in  no  wise  connect  this  movement  to  any  partisan 
effort,  as  it  can  be  applied  to  the  party  to  which  each  member  belongs. 

In  seeking  a true  and  practical  remedy  for  the  evils  that  now  flow  from 
the  imperfections  in  our  financial  system,  let  us  first  consider  what  is  the 
greatest  evil,  and  on  what  it  depends.  The  greatest  evil,  the  one  that  outstrips 
all  others  so  far  that  it  is  instantly  recognized  as  the  chief,  and  known  with 
certainty  to  be  more  oppressive  to  the  productive  interests  of  the  country 
than  any  other  influence,  is  that  which  delegates  to  a certain  class  the  power 
to  fix  the  price  of  all  kinds  of  produce,  and  of  all  commodities.  This  power 
is  not  delegated  directly,  but  it  is  delegated  indirectly,  by  allowing  such  class 
to  issue  a large  per  cent,  of  the  money  used  as  the  circulating  medium  of  the 
country,  and  having  the  balance  of  such  circulating  medium,  which  is  issued 
by  the  Government,  a fixed  quantity  that  is  not  augmented  to  correspond  with 
the  necessities  of  the  times.  In  consequence  of  this,  the  money  issued  by  the 
privileged  class,  which  they  are  at  liberty  to  withdraw  at  pleasure,  can  be  and 
is  so  manipulated  as  to  control  the  volume  of  circulating  medium  in  the 
country  sufficiently  to  produce  fluctuations  in  general  prices  at  their  pleasure. 
It  may  be  likened  unto  a simple  illustration  in  philosophy:  The  inflexible  vol- 
ume of  the  Government  issue  is  the  fulcrum,  the  volume  of  the  bank  issue  is  the 
lever  power,  and  price  is  the  point  at  which  power  is  applied;  and  it  is  either 
raised  or  lowered  with  great  certainty  to  correspond  with  the  volume  of  bank 
issue.  Any  mechanic  will  instantly  recognize  the  fact  that  the  quickest  and 
surest  way  of  destroying  the  power  of  the  lever  to  raise  or  lower  price  is  to  re- 
move the  .resistance  offered  by  the  fulcrum  — the  inflexible  volume  of  Govern- 
ment issue.  The  power  to  regulate  the  volume  of  money  so  as  to  control 
price  is  so  manipulated  as  to  develop  and  apply  a potent  force,  for  which  we 
have  in  the  English  language  no  name;  but  it  is  the  power  of  money  to  op- 
press, and  is  demonstrated  as  follows:  In  the  last  four  months  of  the  year, 
the  agricultural  products  of  the  whole  year  having  been  harvested,  they  are 
placed  on  the  market  to  buy  money.  The  amount  of  money  necessary  to  sup- 
ply this  demand  is  equal  to  many  times  the  actual  amount  in  circulation. 
Nevertheless,  the  class  that  controls  the  volume  of  the  circulating  medium  de- 


SUB-TREASURY  SYSTEM. 


271 


sire  to  purchase  these  agricultural  products  for  speculative  purposes,  so  they 
reduce  the  volume  of  money  by  hoarding,  in  the  face  of  the  augmented  de- 
mand, and  thereby  advance  the  exchangeable  value  of  the  then  inadequate 
volume  of  money,  which  is  equivalent  to  reducing  the  price  of  the  agricul- 
tural products.  True,  agriculturists  should  hold  their  products,  and  not  sell 
them  at  these  ruinously-low  prices.  And  no  doubt  they  would  if  they  could, 
but  to  prevent  that,  practically  all  debts,  taxes  and  interests  are  made  to  ma- 
ture at  that  time,  and  they  being  forced  to  have  money  at  a certain  season 
when  they  have  the  product  of  their  labor  to  sell,  the  power  of  money  to  op- 
press by  its  scarcity  is  applied,  until  it  makes  them  turn  loose  their  products 
so  low  that  their  labor  expended  does  not  average  them  fifty  cents  per  day. 

This  illustrates  the  power  of  money  to  oppress;  the  remedy,  as  before,  lies 
in  removing  the  power  of  the  fulcrum  — the  inflexible  Government  issue  — 
and  supplying  a Government  issue  the  volume  of  which  shall  be  increased  to 
correspond  with  the  actual  addition  to  the  wealth  of  the  nation  presented  by 
agriculture  at  harvest  time,  and  diminished  as  such  agricultural  products  are 
consumed.  Such  a flexibility  of  volume  would  guarantee  a stability  of  price, 
based  on  cost  of  production,  which  would  be  compelled  to  reckon  the  pay  for 
agricultural  labor  at  the  same  rates  as  other  employments.  Such  flexibility 
would  rob  money  of  its  most  potent  power  — the  power  to  oppress  — and  place 
a premium  on  productive  effort.  But  how  may  so  desirable  a result  be  se- 
cured? Let  us  see.  By  applying  the  same  principles  now  in  force  in  the 
monetary  system  of  the  United  States,  with  only  slight  modifications  in  the 
details  of  their  execution.  The  Government  and  the  people  of  this  country 
realize  that  the  amount  of  gold  and  silver,  and  the  certificates  based  on  these 
metals,  do  not  comprise  a volume  of  money  sufficient  to  supply  the  wants  of 
the  country,  and  in  order  to  increase  the  volume  the  Government  allows  indi- 
viduals to  associate  themselves  into  a body  corporate,  and  deposit  with  the 
Government  bonds  which  represent  national  indebtedness,  which  the  Govern- 
ment holds  in  trust,  and  issues  to  such  corporation  paper  money  equal  to  90 
per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  bonds,  and  charges  said  corporation  interest  at 
the  rate  of  1 per  cent,  per  annum  for  the  use  of  said  paper  money.  This 
allows  the  issue  of  paper  money  to  increase  the  volume  of  the  circulating 
medium  on  a perfectly  safe  basis,  because  the  margin  is  a guarantee  that  the 
banks  will  redeem  the  bonds  before  they  mature.  But  now  we  find  that  the 
circulation  secured  by  this  method  is  still  not  adequate;  or,  to  take  a very 
conservative  position,  if  we  admit  that  it  is  adequate  on  the  average,  we  know 
that  the  fact  of  its  being  entirely  inadequate  for  half  the  year  makes  its  in- 
flexibility an  engine  of  oppression,  because  a season  in  which  it  is  inadequate 
must  be  followed  by  one  of  superabundance  in  order  to  bring  about  the  aver- 
age, and  such  a range  in  volume  means  great  fluctuations  in  prices  which  cut 


272 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


against  the  producer,  both  in  buying  and  selling,  because  he  must  sell  at  a 
season  when  produce  is  low,  and  buy  when  commodities  are  high.  The  sys- 
tem, now  in  vogue  by  the  United  States  Government,  of  supplementing  its 
circulating  medium  by  a safe  and  redeemable  paper  money,  should  be  pushed 
a little  further  and  conducted  in  such  a manner  as  to  secure  a certain  aug- 
mentation of  supply  at  the  season  of  the  year  in  which  the  agricultural  addi- 
tions to  the  wealth  of  the  nation  demand  money,  and  a diminution  in  such 
supply  of  money  as  said  agricultural  products  are  consumed.  It  is  not  an 
average  adequate  amount  that  is  needed,  because  under  it  the  greatest  abuses 
may  prevail,  but  a certain  adequate  amount  that  adjusts  itself  to  the  wants 
of  the  country  at  all  seasons.  For  this  purpose  let  us  demand  that  the  United 
States  Government  modify  its  present  financial  system: 

1.  So  as  to  allow  the  free  and  unlimited  coinage  or  the  issue  of  the  silver 
certificates  against  an  unlimited  deposit  of  bullion. 

2.  That  the  system  of  using  certain  banks  as  United  States  depositories  be 
abolished,  and  in  place  of  said  system  establish  in  every  county  in  each  of  the 
States  that  offers  for  sale  during  the  year  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  worth 
of  farm  products,  including,  wheat,  corn,  oats,  barley,  rye,  rice,  tobacco,  cot- 
ton, wool,  and  sugar,  all  together,  a Sub-treasury  office,  which  shall  have  in 
connection  with  it  such  warehouses  or  elevators  as  are  necessary  for  carefully 
storing  and  preserving  such  agricultural  products  as  are  offered  it  for  storage, 
and  it  should  be  the  duty  of  such  Sub-treasury  Department  to  receive  such 
agricultural  products  as  are  offered  for  storage,  and  make  a careful  examina- 
tion of  such  products  and  class  same  as  to  quality,  and  give  a certificate  of 
deposit  showing  the  amount  and  quality,  and  that  United  States  legal-tender 
paper  money,  equal  to  80  per  cent,  of  the  local  current  value  of  the  products 
deposited,  has  been  advanced  on  same  on  interest  at  the  rate  of  1 per  cent, 
per  annum,  on  condition  that  the  owner,  or  such  other  person  as  he  may  au- 
thorize, will  redeem  the  agricultural  product  withinjtwelve  months  from  the 
date  of  the  certificate,  or  the  trustees  will  sell  same  at  public  auction  to  the 
highest  bidder  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  the  debt.  Besides  the  1 per  cent, 
interest,  the  sub-treasurer  should  be  allowed  to  charge  a trifle  for  handling 

[and  storage,  and  a reasonable  amount  for  insurance,  but  the  premises  neces- 
sary for  conducting  this  business  should  be  secured  by  the  various  counties 
donating  to  the  General  Government  the  land,  the  Government  building  the 
very  best  modern  buildings,  fire-proof  and  substantial.  With  this  method  in 
vogue,  the  farmer,  when  his  product  was  harvested,  would  place  it  in  storage 
where  it  would  be  perfectly  safe,  and  he  would  secure  four-fifths  of  its  value 
to  supply  his  pressing  necessity  for  money  at  1 per  cent,  per  annum.  He 
would  negotiate  and  sell  his  warehouse  or  elevator  receipt  whenever  the  cur- 
rent price  suited  him,  receiving  from  the  person  to  whom  he  sold  only  the 


SUB-TREASURY  SYSTEM. 


273 


difference  between  the  price  agreed  upon  and  the  amount  already  paid  by  the 
sub-treasurer.  When,  however,  these  storage  certificates  reached  the  hand  of 
the  miller  or  factory,  or  other  consumer,  he  to  get  the  product  would  have  to 
return  to  the  sub-treasurer  the  sum  of  money  advanced,  together  with  the  in- 
terest on  same  and  the  storage  and  insurance  charges  on  the  product.  This 
is  no  new  or  untried  scheme;  it  is  safe  and  conservative;  it  harmonizes  and 
carries  out  the  system  already  in  vogue  on  a really  safer  plan,  because  the 
products  of  the  country  that  must  be  consumed  every  year  are  really  the  very 
best  security  in  the  world,  and  with  more  justice  to  society  at  large.  For  a 
precedent,  attention  is  called  to  the  following: 

In  December,  1848,  the  London  Times  announced  the  inevitable  failure  of 
the  French  republic  and  disintegration  of  French  society  in  the  near  future, 
but  so  wise  was  the  administration  of  the  statesmen  of  that  nation,  that  ‘two 
months  later  it  was  forced  to  eat  its  own  words  — saying  in  its  columns,  Feb- 
ruary 16,  1849: 

“As  a mere  commercial  speculation,  with  the  assets  which  the  bank  held  in 
hand  it  might  then  have  stopped  payment  and  liquidated  its  affairs  with  ev- 
ery probability  that  a very  few  weeks  would  enable  it  to  clear  off  its  liabilities. 
But  this  idea  was  not  for  a moment  entertained  by  M.  D’Argout,  and  he  re- 
solved to  make  every  effort  to  keep  alive  what  may  be  termed  the  circulation 
of  the  life-blood  of  the  community.  The  task  was  overwhelming.  Money  was 
to  be  found  to  not  only  meet  the  demands  on  the  bank,  but  the  necssities, 
both  public  and  private,  of  every  rank  in  society.  It  was  essential  to  enable 
the  manufacturers  to  work,  lest  their  workmen,  driven  to  desperation,  should 
fling  themselves  among  the  most  violent  enemies  of  public  order.  It  was  es- 
sential to  provide  money  for  the  food  of  Paris,  for  the  pay  of  troops,  and  for 
the  daily  support  of  the  industrial  establishments  of  the  nation.  A failure  on 
any  one  point  would  have  led  to  a fresh  convulsion,  but  the  panic  had  been  fol- 
lowed by  so  great  a scarcity  of  the  metallic  currency  that,  a few  days  later,  out 
of  a payment  of  26,000,000  fallen  due,  only  47,000  francs  could  be  recovered 
in  silver. 

“In  this  extremity,  when  the  bank  alone  retained  any  available  sums  of 
money,  the  government  came  to  the  rescue,  and  on  the  night  of  the  15th  of 
March,  the  notes  of  the  bank  were,  by  a decree,  made  a legal  tender,  the  issue 
of  these  notes  being  limited  in  all  to  350,000,000,  but  the  amount  of  the  low- 
est of  them  reduced  for  the  public  convenience  to  100  francs.  One  of  the 
great  difficulties  mentioned  in  the  report  was  to  print  these  100-franc  notes 
fast  enough  for  the  public  consumption.  In  ten  days  the  amount  issued  in 
this  form  had  reached  80,000,000  francs. 

“To  enable  the  manufacturing  interests  to  weather  the  storm  at  a moment 
when  all  the  sales  were  interrupted,  a decree  of  the  national  assembly  had  di- 
rected warehouses  to  be  opened  for  the  reception  of  all  kinds  of  goods,  and 
provided  that  the  registered  invoice  of  the  goods  so  deposited  should  be  made 
negotiable  by  indorsement.  The  Bank  of  France  discounted  these  receipts. 
In  Havre  alone  eighteen  millions  were  thus  advanced  on  colonial  produce,  and 
in  Paris  fourteen  millions  on  merchandise;  in  all,  sixty  millions  were  made 
available  for  the  purposes  of  trade.  Thus  the  great  institution  had  placed  it- 


274 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


self  as  it  were  in  direct  contact  with  every  interest  of  the  community,  from 
the  minister  of  the  treasury  down  to  the  trader  in  a distant  outpost.  Like  a 
huge  hydraulic  machine,  it  employed  its  colossal  powers  to  pump  a fresh 
stream  into  the  exhausted  arteries  of  trade  to  sustain  credit  and  preserve  the 
circulation  from  complete  collapse. — From  the  Bank  Charter  Act,  and  the 
Rate  of  Interest,  London,  1873.” 

This  is  proof  positive  and  a clear  demonstration  in  1848  what  this  system 
could  accomplish  when  a necessity  existed  for  resorting  to  it.  But  since  that 
time  every  conceivable  change  has  tended  toward  rendering  such  a system 
easier  managed  and  more  necessary.  The  various  means  of  rapid  transpor- 
tation and  the  facilities  for  the  instantaneous  transmission  of  intelligence 
make  it  no  disadvantage  for  the  produce  of  a country  to  be  stored  at  home 
until  demanded  for  consumption,  and  the  great  savings  that  will  follow  the 
abolition  of  local  shipments  shows  what  great  economy  such  a system  is.  In 
this  day  and  time,  no  one  will  for  a moment  deny  that  all  the  conditions  for 
purchasing  and  sale  will  attach  to  the  Government  certificates  showing  amount, 
quality  and  running  charges  that  attach  fo  the  product. 

The  arguments  sustaining  this  system  will  present  themselves  to  your  minds 
as  you  ponder  over  the  subject.  The  one  fact  stands  out  in  bold  relief,  promi- 
nent, grand,  and  worthy  the  best  efforts  of  our  hearts  and  hands,  and  that  is, 
“this  system  will  emancipate  productive  labor  from  the  power  of  money  to 
oppress,”  with  speed  and  certainty.  Could  any  object  be  more  worthy? 
Surely  not,  and  none  could  be  devised  that  would  more  enlist  your  sympathies. 

Our  forefathers  fought  in  the  Revolutionary  War,  making  sacrifices  that  will 
forever  perpetuate  their  names  in  history,  to  emancipate  productive  labor 
from  the  power  of  a monarch  to  oppress.  Their  battle  cry  was  “Liberty.” 
Our  monarch  is  a false,  unjust  and  statutory  power  given  to  money,  which 
calls  for  a conflict  on  our  part  to  emancipate  productive  labor  from  the  power 
of  money  to  oppress.  Let  the  watchword  again  be  “Liberty!” 


The  plan  received  a strong  indorsement  from  the  Supreme  Council,  at  Ocala, 
Florida,  in  December,  1890.  May  19,  1891,  a reform  conference  was  held  in 
Cincinnati,  and  a platform  adopted  as  a basis  of  the  great  new  People’s  Party. 
There  were  over  1,400  delegates  present,  and  the  Sub-t  easury  Plan  received  a 
unanimous  indorsement  as  one  of  the  planks  of  that  platform.  The  bills 
presented  in  the  Fifty-first  Congress  are  not  before  the  public  for  discussion; 
they  are  a thing  of  the  past.  The  principles  involved  in  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Monetary  System  are  what  the  so-called  Sub-treasury  advocates 
contend  for,  and  therefore  the  examination  of  th^se  principles  is  all  that  is 
now  necessary  in  a Sub-treasury  treatise  or  argument. 

The  opponents  of  the  Sub-treasury  System  claim  that  it  is  a violation  of 
section  20  of  the  amendments  to  the  constitution,  as  follows: 


UNION  PACIFIC  RAILWAY. 


275 


“The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  constitution,  nor 
prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to 
the  people.” 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  claimed  to  be  constitutional,  under  sections  8 and 
10  of  the  constitution. 

In  section  8,  among  other  powers  conferred  by  that  instrument,  we  find  the 
following: 

The  Congress  shall  have  power  “to  pay  the  debts  and  provide  for  the 
common  defense  and  general  welfare  of  the  United  States;  to  borrow  money 
on  the  credit  of  the  United  States;  to  coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thereof; 
. . . and  to  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carry- 

ing into  execution  the  foregoing  powers,  and  all  other  powers  vested  by  this 
constitution  in  the  Government  of  the  United  States.’’  . . . 

Section  10  provides  that  no  State  shall  “make  anything  but  gold  and  silver 
a tender  in  payment  of  debts.” 

It  thus  appears,  and  the  Supreme  Court  has  so  decided,  that  the  only  source 
of  the  money  supply  is  the  legislative  power  — Congress. 

The  duty  to  provide  the  money  for  the  nation  carries  with  it  the  duty  to  provide 
enough  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  trade . 

The  duty  to  supply  the  money  and  to  furnish  enough  of  it  carries  with  it , 
also , the  duty  of  distributing  it  when  and  where  most  needed.  This  is  never 
questioned  when  Wall  street  is  in  a panic,  or  suffering  from  a scarcity  of 
funds.  Under  such  circumstances  the  treasury  is  always  called  on,  and  it 
never  fails  to  respond  to  that  cry  of  distress. 

It  is  just  as  legitimate  to  furnish  relief  to  the  West  as  to  the  East,  and  the 
question  of  method  is  the  only  one  to  be  discussed.  The  opponents  of  the 
Sub-treasury  System  have  not  yet  cited  the  country  to  a plan  that  would  do 
the  work  and  eliminate  the  features  they  object  to.  The  supporters  of  the 
measure  will  readily  adopt  some  other  method,  if  one  is  produced  that  will  do 
the  work  as  well  and  as  cheaply  and  certainly  as  this. 

A full  discussion  of  the  Sub-treasury  System,  as  proposed  by  the  Farmers’ 
Alliance,  is  found  in  Yol.  I,  No.  6,  “Library  of  National  Economist  Extras,” 
for  sale  at  this  office;  price  15c. 


CONSTRUCTION  AND  CAPITALIZATION  OF  UNION  PACIFIC 
RAILWAY  COMPANIES. 

[See  page  137,  Report  of  the  United  States  Pacific  Railway  Commission.] 

“To  guard  against  possible  abuses  of  these  great  powers,  and  to  insure 
good  management  and  personal  responsibility,  Congress  enacted  that,  in  re- 
turn for  the  nation’s  liberality,  the  companies  should  bind  themselves  to  have 


276 


POPULIST  BAND-BOOK . 


their  stock  fully  paid  in  cash,  and  that  they  should  bind  themselves  also  to 
build  first-class  roads;  to  carry  for  the  Government  at  fair  and  reasonable 
rates  (not  exceeding  the  amounts  paid  by  private  parties  for  the  same  kind 
of  service),  and  to  operate  all  the  lines  in  the  Pacific  system  as  one  connected, 
continuous  line,  affording  to  each  of  the  other  roads  equal  facilities  as  to 
rates,  time,  and  transportation,  and  to  convey  telegraphic  messages  upon 
equal  terms  for  all  persons.  They  were  also  bound  to  make  annual  reports, 
giving  the  names  of  their  directors  and  officers  and  stockholders,  and  infor- 
mation bearing  upon  the  amount  of  stock  actually  paid  in,  and  upon  expendi- 
tures, receipts,  and  indebtedness.” 

With  these  legal  obligations  and  covenants  resting  upon  them,  what  did 
these  companies  do?  The  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company  actually  received 
in  cash,  on  account  of  stock  payments,  the  sum  of  only  $400,650,  while  it  is- 
sued stock  in  the  amount  of  $36,762,300. 

The  Union  Pacific  (1,038.68  miles)  was  built  for  $38,824,000,  and  the  com- 
pany issued  bonds  and  stocks,  as  follows: 


First  mortgage  bonds $27,237,000 

United  States  bonds. 27,236,512 

Land-grant  bonds 9,224,000 

Income  bonds 9,355,000 

Stock 36,762,300 


Total $109,814,812 

Cost  of  construction 38,824,000 


Fictitious  capital $70,990,812 


On  page  138,  same  report,  we  find  the  following: 

The  testimony  taken  by  the  Wilson  committee  showed  that  G.  M.  Dodge 
had  been  given,  for  services  in  procuring  the  passage  of  the  act  of  March  3, 
1871,  $24,500;  that  C.  S.  Bushriell  had  paid  to  T.  A.  Scott,  on  private  account, 
$19,000;  that  C.  S.  Bushnell  had  retained  $82,500;  that  there  was  paid  to 
Governor  Jno.  A.  Dix,  as  a purchase  by  the  railroad  company  of  his  stock, 
$50,000;  that  there  was  paid  to  C.  Windell,  for  signing  the  report  accepting  a 
section  of  the  road,  $25,000;  and  that  an  allowance  was  made  to  T.  C.  Durant 
of  $435,750.21  for  expenses  in  passing  through  Congress  the  amendatory  act 
of  July  2,  1864. 

Again: 

The  Central  Pacific  actually  received  less  than  $760,000  in  cash  and  bonds 
on  account  of  stock  subscription,  while  it  issued  stock  to  the  amount  of 
$54,000,000. 

The  Central  Pacific  and  Western  Pacific  aided  portions  (806.66  miles)  were 
built  for  $40,000,000,  for  which  bonds  and  stocks  were  issued  by  Messrs.  Le- 


UNION  PACIFIC  RAILWAY. 


277 


land  Stanford,  C.  P.  Huntington,  Mark  Hopkins,  and  Charles  Crocker,  or  un- 


der their  direction,  as  follows: 

Bonds $70,211,680 

Stock 54,000,000 

Total  issue  of  bonds  and  stocks $124,211,680 

Cost  of  construction 40,000,000 

Fictitious  capital $84,211,680 

Again,  page  140: 


From  the  minutes  and  accounts  of  the  railroad  companies,  and  from  frag- 
mentary information  gathered  from  various  sources,  it  is  disclosed,  that  the 
officers  of  at  least  three  of  these  companies  made  false  statements  under  oath, 
in  affidavits  now  on  file  in  the  Interior  Department.  From  these  affidavits, 
the  following  has  been  compiled: 

STOCK  TABLE. 


Company. 

Stock  actu- 
ally paid  in. 

Stock  paid  in 
as  sworn  to. 

Names  of  depo- 
nents. 

Date  of 
affidavit. 

Union  Pacific  . . . 
Kansas  Pacific. . . 
Central  Pacific. . 
Central  Branch.  . 

Total 

$400,650 

250.000 

760.000 
386,700 

$36,762,000 

5,072,500 

54,283,190 

980,600 

Oliver  Ames .... 

B.  E.  Carr 

Leland  Stanford, 
B.  M.  Pomeroy. . 

Sept.  27, 1870 
Sept.  28,  1872 
Sept.  18, 1871 
Sept.  21, 1869 

$1,797,350 

$97,098,590 

In  this  volume  there  are  scores  of  instructive  tables,  each  of  which  tells  its 
own  peculiar  story.  Every  circulating  library  should  get  it.  Order  Execu- 
tive Document  No.  51  of  the  Fiftieth  Congress.  Order  from  your  United 
States  Senator. 

The  famous  (infamous)  Huntington  letters  are  found  in  the  appendix  to 
(l  Driven  From  Sea  to  Sea.”  ( Extra  A,  of  Economic  Quarterly.)  They  show 
how  corruption  ran  riot  in  the  era  of  Pacific  railway  building. 

17— 


OFFICIAL  STATE  DIRECTORY, 


UNITED  STATES  SENATORS. 


Name. 

Post  office. 

County. 

Politics. 

Preston  B.  Plumb 

Emporia 

Lyon 

Republican. 

Populist. 

William  A.  Peffer 

Topeka 

Shawnee... 

REPRESENTATIVES  IN  CONGRESS. 


District. 

Name. 

Post  office. 

County. 

Politics. 

First 

Case  Broderick 

Holton 

Jackson,... 
Allen 

Republican. 

Republican. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Second  

E.  H.  Funston 

Carlyle 

Third 

Benj.  H.  Clover... 

Cambridge.... 

Cowley 

Fourth 

John  G.  Otis 

Topeka 

Shawnee... 
Geary 

Fifth 

John  Davis 

Junction  City 

Sivth  

William  Baker 

Lincoln 

Lincoln 

Seventh  

At,  large 

Jeremiah  Simpson... 

Medicine  Lodge 

Barber 

CONGRESSIONAL  DISTRICTS. 

^Apportionment  of  1883. 

First.  The  counties  of  Nemaha,  Brown,  Doniphan,  Pottawatomie,  Jackson,  Atchison,  Jeffer- 
son, and  Leavenworth. 

Second.  The  counties  of  Wyandotte,  Johnson,  Douglas,  Miami,  Franklin,  Anderson,  Linn, 
Allen,  and  Bourbon. 

Third . The  counties  of  Crawford,  Cherokee,  Neosho,  Labette,  Wilson,  Montgomery,  Elk, 
Chautauqua,  and  Cowley. 

Fourth.  The  counties  of  Shawnee,  Wabaunsee,  Osage,  Lyon,  Coffey,  Woodson,  Greenwood, 
Butler,  Chase,  Marion,  and  Morris. 

Fifth.  The  counties  of  Marshall,  Washington,  Republic,  Cloud,  Clay,  Riley,  Ottawa,  Saline, 
Dickinson,  and  Geary. 

Sixth.  The  counties  of  Jewell,  Mitchell,  Lincoln,  Ellsworth,  Russell,  Osborne,  Smith,  Phillips, 
Rooks,  Ellis,  Trego,  Graham,  Norton,  Decatur,  Sheridan,  Gove,  Logan,  Thomas,  Rawlins,  Chey- 
enne, Sherman,  and  Wallace.  * 

Seventh.  The  counties  of  McPherson,  Harvey,  Sedgwick,  Sumner,  Harper,  Kingman,  Reno, 

*Underthe  congressional  apportionment  made  by  the  Fifty-first  Congress,  based  upon  the 
census  of  1890,  Kansas  is  entitled  to  eight  Representatives;  and,  the  Legislature  of  1891  failing 
to  redistrict  the  State,  one  Congressman-at-Large  will  be  elected  in  1892. 

(278) 


PASSFNEFRS  TRAVELING  IN  ANY  DIRECTION 


WILL  CONSULT  THEIR  OWN  INTERESTS 


AND  PROMOTE  THEIR  OWN  COMFORT  by  taking  the  Chicago  & Alton  Railroad  whenever 
that  line  can  be  used  for  the  whole  or  part  of  a journey.  The  Chicago  & Alton  Railroad  is  the 
only  completely  stone-ballasted  line  running  between  the  cities  of  St.  Louis,  Kansas  City,  and 
Chicago.  This  line  has  the  proud  record  of  being  the  first  road  in  the  world  to  adopt  Pullman 
Sleeping  Cars,  Dining  Cars,  and  Reclining-Chair  Cars,  and  the  first  road  to  incorporate  these 
three  luxurious  features  of  modern  travel  in  vestibuled  trains.  The  Chicago  & Alton  Railroad 
makes  no  extra  charge  for  seats  in  its  magnificent  and  luxurious  Palace  Reclining-Chair  Cars, 
which  are  run  in  all  through  trains,  day  and  night,  nor  for  passage  in  any  of  its  fast,  famous 
and  solid  VESTIBULE©  LIMITED  TRAINS,  consisting  of 


New  Smoking  Cars,  Palace  Reclining-Chair  Cars, 

Pullman  Buffet  Sleeping:  Cars,  and  Palace  Dining:  Cars, 

Running  through,  without  change,  between 


6 Vestibuled. 


St.  Louis  and  Kansas  City,  Kansas  City  and  Chicago, 

St.  Louis  and  Chicago,  Denver  and  Chicago. 

Also  new  and  superb  Pullman  Parlor  Buffet  Cars  on  day  trains,  and  new  and 
unequaled  Pullman  Compartment  Sleeping  Cars  on  night  trains  between 
St.  Louis  and  Chicago. 


The  best  and  surest  connections  are  made  in  Union  Depots  in  St.  Louis,  East  St.  Louis,  Kan- 
sas City,  Chicago  and  Bloomington. 

Ask  your  own  Home  Ticket  Agent  for  tickets  via  the  Chicago  & Alton  Railroad,  and  thus 
secure  the  lowest  rates,  the  quickest  time,  and  the  best  accommodations. 


CHICAGO  & ALTON  RAILROAD  TICKET  OFFICES: 

St.  Louis  — 216  North  Broadway,  near  Olive  Street,  and  Union  Depot. 

East  St.  Louis  — Relay  Depot. 

Kansas  City— 814  Main  Street;  1038  Union  Ave.  ("opposite  Union  Depot),  and  Union  Depot. 
Chicago  — 195  South  CLrk  Street,  and  West-Side  Union  Depot. 

Information  as  to  rates,  time,  connections,  etc.,  will  be  cheerfully  furnished  on  application  to 

D.  BOWES,  Gen.  Western  Passenger  Agent, 

216  North  Broadway,  ST.  LOUIS,  MO. 


Brice’s  Financial  Catechism,  or  Economic  Quarterly,  No.  I.  Unques- 
tioned authority  upon  the  financial  history  and  legislation  of  this  country.  A mine  of 
financial  knowledge.  Price  50  cents. 

Richard’s  Crown,  or  Economic  Quarterly,  No.  2,  by  Anna  D.  Weaver. — 

A thrilling  story,  graphically  depicting  the  great  financial  schemers  that  are  wrecking  the 
happiness  of  the  American  producing  classes.  Price  50  cents. 

Great  Red  Dragon,  Economic  Quarterly,  No.  3,  by  L.  B.  Woolf oik. — 
A graphic  exposition  of  startling  facts,  sustained  by  indisputable  evidence.  The  most 
complete  exposure  ever  written  of  the  danger  threatening  the  American  Republic.  Worth 
its  weight  in  gold  to  every  patriot.  Price  50  cents. 

Caesar’s  Column,  Economic  Quarterly,  No.  4,  by  Hon.  Ignatius  Donnelly. 
The  opposite  of  “Looking  Backward.”  The  most  thrilling  story  that  has  appeared  in  a 
decade,  describing  society’s  condition  a hundred  years  hence,  as  it  will  be  if  present 
social  and  political  tendencies  continue.  A book  every  American  citizen  should  read. 
Price  50  cents. 

Driven  From  Sea  to  Sea,  Economic  Quarterly,  Extra  A.  Gen.  B.  F. 

Butler  writes : — “ I have  given  the  book  full  perusal.  It  is  the  most  timely  book  that  has 
been  published.  Its  execution  is  very  remarkable  as  a piece  of  bookmaking.  It  is  not  a 
work  of  fiction,  but  exhibits  startling  truths  that  are  stranger  than  fiction.  I wish  that  a 
copy  could  be  put  in  the  hands  of  and  read  by  every  member  of  both  branches  of  Con- 
gress. The  second  copy  you  sent  I will  send  to  the  President  with  a note  requesting  him 
to  read  it.” 

Gen.  Butler,  in  his  letter  to  President  Arthur,  says : “ I think  it  will  do  the  same  serv- 
ice to  the  country  in  regard  to  the  misuse  of  our  land  system  that  * Uncle  Tom’s  Cabin’ 
did  with  regard  to  slavery.’*  Price,  paper,  50  cents. 

A Tramp  in  Society,  Economic  Quarterly,  Vol.  2,  No.  1.  A remarkable 
piece  of  fiction  based  on  fact.  The  Farmer’s  Voice  says: — “The  style  of  ‘A  Tramp  in 
Society’  is  forcible,  impressive  and  eloquent.  The  reader’s  feelings  at  times  are  wrought 
up  to  the  highest  pitch  of  indignation  against  oppressive  wrong,  amid  scenes  that  would 
draw  tears  from  eyes  of  stone,  and  then  again,  they  are  deftly  turned  toward  other  pict- 
ures, or  by  some  trite  sarcasm  or  optimistic  banter  the  story  is  carried  without  a break  in 
the  intensity  of  its  well-sustained  interest.  And  through  it  all  is  felt  the  powerful  influ- 
ence of  the  lesson  these  scenes  must  teach.  No  fine-spun  theories,  no  unnatural  condi- 
tions are  built  upon.  The  book  is  as  plain  and  practical  as  a business  man  could  make  it, 
and  clearly  sets  forth  the  means  by  which  in  our  day  the  people  may  receive  the  benefit  of 
just  conditions,  if  they  will  that  it  shall  be  so. 

“ The  terrible  oppression  of  the  people  by  the  land-lords  and  the  lend-lords  is  depict- 
ed with  such  awful  realism  in  Mr.  Cowdrey’s  book  that  one  is  tempted  to  deny  that  such 
conditions  can  exist  in  free  America.”  Price,  paper,  50  cents. 

Usury,  by  Prof.  C.  Vincent. — A popular  lecture  on  the  evils  of  the  usury 
system,  also  a lecture  by  Ralph  Beaumont  on  the  issues  of  the  day.  Both  combined, 
20  cents. 

History  of  the  Agricultural  Wheel  and  Farmer’s  Alliance,  by  W S'. 

Morgan. — A large  illustrated  volume  of  778  pages.  The  most  complete  history  of  these 
great  organizations  that  has  ever  appeared.  Price  $2.25. 

Mable  Raymond’s  Resolve;  or,  Perfect  Motherhood. — A splendid  story 
by  Lois  Waisbrooker,  showing  the  effects  upon  the  race,  for  good  or  evil,  of  the  mother’s 
surroundings.  Price  $1.50. 

Papa’s  Own  Girl,  by  Marie  Howland. — An  intensely  interesting  story,  ex- 
posing society’s  foibles  and  presenting  a masterly  argument  for  co-operative  effort. 
Price  $1.00. 


300,000  ARE  SINGING  FROM  THE  ALLIANCE  AND  LABOR  SONGSTER ! 


The  demand  for  this  little  book  was  so  very  heavy  that  the  publishers  have  now  com- 
pleted a beautiful  MUSIC  EDITION,  revised  and  enlarged,  in  superior  style,  and 
furnished  in  both  paper  and  board  covers.  This  is  far  the  largest  songster  in  the  market 
for  the  price,  and  the  carefully  prepared  index  enables  both  word  and  number  editions  to 
be  used  together.  The  Music  Edition  resembles  in  appearance  and  size  Gospel  Hymns. 
More  of  these  books  are  in  use  than  any  other  Labor  Songster  published,  and  since  the 
endorsement  by  the  NATIONAL  COUNCIL  AT  OCALA,  FLORIDA,  the  demand 
is  simply  wonderful.  With  largely  increased  facilities  for  publishing,  all  orders  can  be 
filled  the  same  day  received,  whether  by  the  dozen  or  thousand.  Price,  single  copy, 
paper,  20  c.;  board,  25  c.,  postpaid.  Per  dozen,  $2.00  and  $2.50,  postpaid.  Word  edi- 
tion, 80  pages,  ioc. 


in  cd>  co  oc  •i*' 


to  each  100  miles  of  road  operated,  with  an  estimate  of  the  annual  wages  paid  all  employes,  except  salaries 


TRANSPORTATION. 


LZVo. 


660 

18 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

2 

96 

1 

96. 

7 

14 

200 

350 

28 

115 

632 


« 

* 


272 
266 
300 
400 
300 
292 
200 
265 

273 
104 
300 
300 
376 
268 
295 
283 
340 
406 


No. 


1,054 

25 

2 

4 

2 

3 

3 

2 

201 

1 

191 

12 

22 

217 

702 

53 

237 

1,219 


U 

to 

vf 

* 


Cfc. 


189 

159 

200 

162 

211 

175 

200 

250 

163 

238 

203 

203 

171 

170 

191 

187 

213 

270 


ui 

I 


iVo. 


451 

6 


88 

‘i’27' 


10 

115 

528 

42 

53 

684 


3 

p 

CTQ 

cd 

tn 


Cts. 


251 

168 


100 

261 


198 

276 


247 

201 

204 

228 

278 

290 


v S. 

5 D 

to 

o 53’ 
3*0 

to 
o 


No. 


318 

12 


2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

104 


61 

1 

8 

206 

349 

20 

96 

470 


« 

to 

* 

so 

orq 

cd 

so 


C7s. 


184 

130 


201 

200 

133 

142 

150 

161 


198 
368 
290 
190 
174 

199 
211 
281 


GENERAL. 


CD 

n 

P? 

co 

crq 

CD 

d 

CD 


iVo. 


785 

“”7 


116 

2 

287 

3 

23 

242 

447 

32 

123 

797 


« 

tot 

S3 

to 

era 

CD 

CO 


Cfc. 


222 

301 


231 

192 

237 

118 

191 

229 

115 

136 

295 

212 


H 
cd  © 

b * 

l-d 

•3  i 

CD  to 

o-cr 

CD 

0 

to 

CT5 

CD 

1 

3 

O 

CD 

<-i 


No. 


16,052 

904 

44 
120 

75 

36 

45 

8,1*58 

36 

3,273 

212 

361 

5,192 

9,797 

914 

3,632 

21,720 


55 

II 

CD  d* 
CO  CD 

* B 

o'? 

os 

© O 
^ CD 

Hj  to 

to  CD 

P*o 

: o 


No. 


292 
96 
77 
96 

199 

43 

69 

50 

202 

112 

490 

121 

154 

293 
311 
235 
274 
280 


Total 
estimated 
annual 
pay  of  all 
wage- 
workers. 


In  Dollars. 


,456,524 

412,240 

23,749 

59,472 

45,874 

22,665 

27,531 

21,779 

,542,948 

10,817 

,940,472 

110,307 

194,940 

,823,930 

,908,977 

475,877 

,096,018 

,163,249 


1 

(oj- 

(*>) 

(0 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

(d) 

13 

14 


i 

A 

5,229 

3,950 

2,108 

1,654 

2,864 

65,801 

272 

37,337,369 

* 

62 

300 

135 

175 

18 

130 

17 

215 

68 

177 

2,423 

232 

1,210,674 

17 

! 36 

309 

60 

219 

20 

190 

10 

239 

52 

186 

1,108 

216 

626,852 

18 

538 

325 

1,059 

208 

1,053 

218 

536 

182 

977 

176 

17,460 

359 

10,072,993 

19 

566 

318 

1,132 

185 

398 

169 

498 

187 

732 

175 

15,559 

274 

9,979,640 

20 

607 

299 

1,295 

189 

982 

197 

438 

207 

419 

225 

16,793 

394 

10,115,167 

21 

340 

265 

831 

154 

577 

174 

696 

184 

403 

235 

11,538 

354 

5,312,869 

22 

1 77 

319 

155 

204 

145 

200 

65 

211 

120 

206 

3,308 

641 

1,997,899 

23 

70 

327 

122 

211 

55 

256 

67 

285 

132 

205 

1,935 

233 

1,210,594 

24 

132 

306 

290 

193 

165 

210 

131 

219 

132 

240 

4,395 

316 

2,532,825 

25 

49 

283 

107 

121 

100 

173 

53 

167 

51 

245 

1,774 

296 

921,121 

26 

j 28 

247 

63 

155 

63 

214 

34 

165 

84 

128 

1,326 

421 

729,959 

27 

9 

287 

18 

152 

5 

240 

15 

194 

10 

243 

318 

215 

164,694 

28 

24 

300 

55 

220 

28 

261 

27 

215 

32 

218 

869 

236 

. 495,051 

29 

13 

348 

33 

232 

10 

201 

7 

191 

10 

220 

345 

238 

198,611 

30 

! 11 

287 

24 

186 

28 

211 

13 

207 

36 

288 

609 

569 

366,375 

31 

113 

310 

242 

190 

64 

198 

119 

169 

310 

250 

3,650 

364 

2,408,723 

32 

i 

fc.675 

5,621 

3,711 

2,326 

3,568 

83,410 

333 

48,344,047 

i 

Branch  lines  of  the  Union  Pacific  (Junction  City  & Fort  Kearney,  Omaha  & Republican  Val- 
y,  St.  Joseph  & Grand  Island,  Solomon,  Union  Pacific,  Lincoln  & Colorado)  included,  and  men 
iployed  thereon  are  embraced  in  report  of  main  line  above  given. 

Thb  1,124  miles  credited  to  the  Chicago,  Kansas  & Nebraska  include  trackage  rights  over  the 
iioh  Pacific  from  Kansas  City  to  Topeka. 


OFFICIAL  DIRECTORY . 


279 


Rice,  Barton,  Stafford,  Pratt,  Barber,  Comanche,  Kiowa,  Edwards,  Pawnee,  Rush,  Ness,  Hodge- 
man, Ford,  Clark,  Meade,  Gray,  Garfield,  Lane,  Scott,  Finney,  Haskell,  Seward,  Stevens,  Grant, 
Kearny,  Wichita,  Greeley,  Hamilton,  Stanton,  and  Morton. 


EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


STATE  OFFICIALS. 


Office. 

Name . 

Post  office. 

County. 

Governor 

Lieutenant  Governor. 

Secretary  of  State 

Treasurer  of  State 

Auditor  of  State 

Attorney  General 

Lyman  U.  Humphrey 

Andrew  J.  Felt 

William  Higgins.. 

Solomon  G.  Stover 

Charles  M.  Hovey 

John  N.  Ives 

Independence 

Seneca 

Topeka 

Belleville 

Colby 

Sterling 

Montgomery. 

Nemaha. 

Shawnee. 

Republic. 

Thomas. 

Rice. 

Geary. 

Franklin. 

Supt.  Public  Instruction... 
State  Printer 

George  W.  Winans 

Edwin  H.  Snow 

Junction  City 

Ottawa 

LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

( For  members  of  the  Senate,  see  page  187  of  this  volume.) 

MEMBERS  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESEN TATIYES. 


District. 

Name. 

Post  office. 

County. 

Politics . 

1 

James  D.  Williamson 

Troy 

Doniphan 

Republican. 

2 

John  Seaton 

Atchison 

Atchison 

Republican. 

3 

R.  p.  Fisher 

Effingham 

Atchison 

Populist. 

4 

Charles  H.  Phinney 

McLouth 

Jefferson 

Republican. 

5 

M.  Reckards 

Thompson  vi  lie 

Jefferson 

Populist. 

6 

Fred  W.  Willard 

Leavenworth 

Leaven  wort  h 

Republican 

7 

S.  F.  Neeley 

Leavenworth 

Leaven  wort  h 

Democrat. 

8 

T.  C.  Craig 

Easton 

Leavenworth. 

Democrat. 

9 

F.  M.  Gable.. , 

Lansing 

Leavenworth...  . 

Democrat. 

10 

J.  0.  Milner 

Kansas  City 

Wyandotte.../ 

Democrat. 

11 

A.  A.  Burgard 

Muncie 

Wyandotte 

Democrat. 

12 

C.  M.  Dickson 

Edgerton 

Johnson 

Populist. 

13 

C.  N.  Bishoff. 

Eudora 

Douglas 

Republican. 

14 

N.  Simmons 

Lawrence 

Douglas 

Republican. 

15 

P.  P.  Elder 

Princeton * 

Franklin 

Populist. 

16 

J.  P.  Stephens 

Wellsville 

Franklin 

Populist. 

17 

J.  B.  Coons 

Spring  Hill,  J’hns’n 

Miami 

Populist. 

18 

J,  B.  Remington 

Osawatomie 

Miami 

Republican. 

19 

J.  W.  Tucker 

Pleasanton 

Linn 

Populist. 

20 

J.  M.  Alexander 

Welda. 

Anderson 

Populist. 

21 

L.  B.  Pearson 

Humboldt 

Allen 

Republican. 

22 

Wm.  M.  Rice 

Fort  Scott 

Bourbon  

Republican. 

23 

B.  F.  Fortney 

Marmaton 

Bourbon  

Populist. 

24 

H.  M.  Reid 

Cherokee 

Crawford 

Populist. 

25 

A.  J.  Cory 

Hadley 

Crawford 

Populist. 

26. 

J.  H.  Chubb 

Baxter  Springs 

Cherokee 

Populist. 

27 

J.  T.  Jones 

Scammonville 

Cherokee 

Populist. 

28 

J.  I.  Tanner 

Mound  Valley 

Labette 

Populist. 

29 

P.  A.  Morrison 

Oswego 

Labette 

Populist. 

30 

Alex.  Duncan 

A ngola 

Labette 

Populist. 

31 

Samuel  Henry 

Independence 

Montgomery , 

Populist. 

280 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES Continued . 


District. 

Name. 

Post  office. 

County. 

Politics. 

32 

A.  L.  Scott 

Neodesha,  Wilson.. 

Montgomery 

Populist. 

33 

George  F.  Smith 

Osage  Mission 

Neosho 

Populist. 

34 

M.  A.  Clover... 

Chanute 

Neosho 

Populist. 

35 

A . Z.  Brown 

Guilford 

Wilson... 

Populist. 

36 

Robert  B.  Reedy 

Neosho  Falls 

Woodson 

Populist. 

37 

0.  M.  Rice 

Agricola 

Coffey 

Populist. 

38 

David  Shull 

Scranton 

Osage 

Populist. 

39 

Robert  W.  Lewis 

Barclay 

Osage 

Populist. 

40 

D M.  Howard 

North  Topeka 

Shawnee 

Populist. 

41 

William  C.  Webb 

Topeka 

Shawnee 

Republican. 

42 

F.  M.  Stahl 

Auburn 

Shawnee 

Republican. 

43 

P.  H.  Steward 

Hoyt 

Jackson 

Populist. 

44 

J.  D.  Hardy 

Hiawatha 

Brown 

Populist. 

45 

D.  R,  MeCliman 

Wood  Lawn 

Nemaha 

Populist. 

46 

Ezra  Carey 

Corning 

Nemaha 

Populist. 

47 

Wellington  Doty. 

Oketo 

Marshall 

Populist. 

48 

Marion  Patterson  

Blue  Rapids 

Marshall 

Populist. 

49 

.T.  R.  Sonpene 

Manhattan,  Riley.. 

Pottawatomie 

Populist. 

50 

C.  F.  Hardick 

Louisville.. 

Pottawatomie 

Populist. 

51  

Josephus  Hamer  

Leonardville 

Riley 

Populist. 

52 

T.  M.  Templeton 

Wreford 

Geary 

Populist. 

53...., 

John  Rehrig 

Eskridge 

Wabaunsee 

Populist. 

S B Wa,rren  

Emporia 

Lyon 

Republican. 

55 

Devi  Diimbauld 

Hartford 

Lyon 

Populist. 

56  

John  Bryden 

Eureka 

Greenwood 

Populist. 

57 

Geo  W.  Crumley 

Grenola 

Elk 

Populist. 

58 

Jason  Helmick 

Cloverdale 

Chautauqua 

Populist. 

59 

.Taeoh  Nixon 

Winfield 

Cowley 

Republican. 

60 

.T.  R.  Andrews 

Arkansas  City 

Cowley  

Populist. 

61 

R.  .R  Davidson 

Eatonville... 

Cowley 

Populist. 

63 

John  H arte n bower 

Douglass 

Butler 

Populist. 

03 

O.  Wr  .Tones  

Augusta 

Butler 

Populist. 

64 

.T  S Doolittle  . ...  ...  .. 

Cottonwood  Falls  .. 

Chase 

Populist. 

65 

Dallas  Rogers  .. 

Marion 

Marion 

Populist. 

66 

E W Maxwell 

Peabody 

Marion 

Populist. 

67 

Charles  Drake 

Council  Grove....... 

Morris 

Populist. 

68 

H.  C.  Harvey 

Manchester 

Dickinson 

Populist. 

69 

M Senn 

Enterprise 

Dickinson 

Populist. 

70 

A A Newman 

Clay  Center 

Clay 

Populist. 

71 

D.  M.  Watson 

Enosdale 

Washington 

Populist. 

72 

Wm  Rodgers 

Barnes 

Washington 

Populist. 

73 

JT  T.  Tngram 

Republic  City 

Republic 

Populist. 

74 

n R Cleveland 

Agenda 

Republic 

Populist. 

75 

O S Fverly 

Meredith 

Cloud 

Populist. 

76 

D S Steele 

Glasco 

Cloud 

Populist. 

77 

George  MeConkey 

Minneapolis 

Ottawa 

Populist. 

7 8 

P H Dolan 

Salina.. 

Saline 

Populist. 

79 

J B Maddox 

Canton 

McPherson 

Populist. 

80 

Fred  .Taekson 

McPherson 

McPherson 

Populist. 

81 

W E Brown 

Newton 

Harvev 

Republican. 

82 

(Jeo  Ti  Douglass  

Wichita 

Sedgwick 

Republican. 

83 

R W Hurt  

Maize 

Sedgwick 

Populist. 

84 

H W Ruble 

Greenwich 

Sedgwick 

Populist. 

85 

C-  E Meeker  

Belle  Plaine 

Sumner 

Populist. 

86 

John  T Sho waiter  

Wellington... 

Sumner 

Republican. 

87 

J M Don  hied  ay 

Caldwell 

Sumner 

Populist. 

88 

CJer»  IT  Cnnlsen 

Anthony 

Harper 

Populist. 

89 

TnVin  Dav  

Kingman 

Kingman 

Populist. 

90 

F W Hinkox  

Medicine  Lodge 

Barber 

Populist. 

91 

T C Rearson 

Coats 

Pratt 

Populist. 

92 

H.  D.  Freeman 

Hutchinson... 

Reno ! 

Populist. 

OFFICIAL  DIRECTORY . 


281 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPBESENTATIVES Concluded. 


District. 


Name. 


Post  office. 


County. 


Politics. 


93. 

94. 

95. 

96. 

97. 

98. 

99. 
100. 
101. 
102. 

103. 

104. 

105. 

106. 

107. 

108. 

109. 

110. 
111. 
112. 

113. 

114. 

115. 

116. 

117. 

118. 

119. 

120. 
121. 
122. 

123. 

124. 

125. 

*.... 

*.... 

* 


* 


* 

* 


W.  H.  Mitchell 

Wm.  Campbell 

M.  W.  Cobun 

W.  M.  Kenton 

Wm.  W.  Stanley 

Otis  L.  Atherton 

A.  N.  Whittington... 

G.  H.  McKinnie 

Benj.  Matchett 

E.  F.  Barnett 

C.  C.  Vandeventer... 

Geo.  E.  Smith 

P.  C.  Wagoner 

Beuben  Bowse 

J.  H.  Beeder 

John  Lovett 

A.  H.  Lupfer 

D.  G.  Donovan 

Geo.  W.  Hollenback 

B.  F.  Morris .... 

A.  H.  Heber 

Geo.  M.  Hoover 

S.  B.  Gillmore 

I.  N.  Goodvin 

W.  F.  King 

W.  H.  Milligan 

W.  Hicks 

Dan  Caster 

W.  J.  Barnes 

W.  B.  Hopkins 

Charles  Vail 

E.  D.  York 

Alfred  Pratt 

Isaac  T.  Purcell 

Fred.  C.  Yearick 

W.  L.  Cook 

John  K.  Laycock 

W.  E.  Hotchkiss 

Benj.  H.  Albertson.. 
W. J.  Chubbuck 

I.  F.  Poston 

A.  S.  Beeler 

W.  M.  Speck 

C.  G.  Wilson 

L.  S.  Boyer 

C.  E.  Lobdell 

Joseph  W.  Young..., 
David  Holmes 

J.  W.  Tout 

T.  H.  Vincent 

G.  M.  Smith  

John  Megaffin 


Huntsville 

Pelton 

Hoisington....... 

Baymond 

Ellsworth 

Bussell 

Lincoln 

Beloit . 

Bloomington.... 

Ezbon 

Jewell  City 

Germantown.... 

Logan 

Plainville 

Hays  City 

McCracken 

Larned 

Belpre 

Cold  water 

Lexington 

Meade 

Dodge  City 

Kidderville 

Banson 

Wakeeney 

Fagan 

Bock  well  City.. 

Oberlin 

Hoxie 

Garden  City 

Colby 

Atwood 

Syracuse 

Grainfield 

La  Blanche 

Oakley 

Sharon  Springs. 

Wheeler  

Haviland 

Leoti 

Liberal.. 

Lafayette 

Bavanna 

Horace ... 

Scott  City. 

Dighton 

Bichfield 

Shockey 

Johnson  City.... 

Cimarron 

Hartland. 

Ivanhoe 


Beno 

Stafford 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Bepublican. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Bepublican. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Bepublican. 

Populist. 

Populist. 

Democrat. 

Populist. 

Bepublican. 

Populist. 

Bepublican. 

Bepublican. 

Barton 

Bice 

Ellsworth 

Bussell 

Lincoln 

Mitchell 

Osborne 

Jewell 

Jewell 

Smith 

Phillips 

Books 

Ellis 

Bush 

Pawnee 

Edwards 

Comanche 

Clark 

Meade 

Ford 

Hodgeman... 

Ness 

Trego 

Graham 

Norton 

Decatur 

Sheridan 

Finney 

Thomas 

Bawlins 

Hamilton 

Gove 

Sherman 

Logan 

Wallace 

Cheyenne 

Kiowa 

Wichita 

Seward 

Stevens 

Garfield 

Greeley.... 

Scott 

Lane 

Morton 

Grant 

Stanton. 

Gray 

Kearny 

Haskell 

* Delegates  from  counties  unorganized  when  apportionment  was  made  in  1886.  These 
Delegates  were  allowed  per  diem,  mileage,  and  privileges  of  the  floor,  but  had  no  vote.  Under 
the  apportionment  of  1891,  each  of  these  counties,  save  Morton  and  Garfield,  will  be  entitled  to 
one  representative. 


282 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  HOUSE. 


Name. 

Post  office. 

County. 

P.  P.  Elder,  Speaker 

Princeton 

Franklin. 

Benj.  Matchett,  Speaker  pro  tem 

Osborne 

Osborne. 

Ben.  C.  Rich,  Chief  Clerk 

Ogallah 

Trego. 

Thomas. 

Jas.  H.  Fort,  Assistant  Chief  Clerk 

Colby 

D.  W.  Jacobs,  Journal  Clerk 

Osage  Mission... 

Neosho. 

L.  C.  Soupene,  Docket  Clerk 

Manhattan 

Riley. 

Jackson. 

J.  R.  Las  well,  Postmaster 

Adrian 

S.  W.  Chase,  Sergeant-at-Arms 

Winfield 

Cowley. 

Grant. 

T.  0.  Harter,  Assistant  Sergeant-at-Arms 

Ulysses 

D.  0.  Markey,  Reading  Clerk 

Mound  City... 

Linn. 

J.  G.  Meferin,  Chaplain 

Melvern 

Osage. 

Leavenworth. 

•T.  F.  Gable,  Document  Clerk 

Leaven  worth 

Jacob  Campbell,  Doorkeeper 

Minneapolis 

Ottawa. 

JUDICIAL. 

SUPREME  COURT. 


* Office. 

Name. 

Post  office. 

County. 

Chief  Justice. 

Albert  H.  Horton 

Topeka 

Shawnee. 

Associate  Justice 

D.  M.  Valentine 

Ottawa 

Franklin. 

Associate  Justice 

W.  A.  Johnston 

Minneapolis 

Ottawa. 

Commissioner 

Benj.  F.  Simpson 

Paola 

Miami. 

Commissioner 

George  S.  Green 

Manhattan 

Riley. 

Commissioner 

J.  C.  Strang 

Larned 

Pawnee. 

Clerk 

C.  J.  Brown 

Blue  Rapids 

Marshall. 

Reporter 

A.  M.  F.  Randolph 

Topeka 

Shawnee. 

Regular  terms  begin  first  Tuesdays  in  January  and  July.  Notice  of  the  time  of  bolding 
special  or  adjourned  terms  must  be  given  by  publication  for  twenty  days  in  a newspaper  pub- 
lished at’ the  State  capital. 


KANSAS  REFORM  PRESS, 


Corrected  to  September  1st,  by  the  Nonconformist. 


Alliance  Monitor Abilene. 

Tidings Allen. 

News Alma. 

Plaindealer Almena. 

Weekly  World Altamont. 

Labor  Review Argentine. 

Fair  Play . Arkansas  City. 

Dispatch .Arkansas  City. 

Clark  County  Clipper Ashland. 

Advocate Attica. 

Rawlins  Democrat Atwood. 

Times Atwood. 

Freeman Belleville. 

Western  Call Beloit. 

Monitor Blue  Rapids. 

Courier Burlington. 

Times Burlingame. 

Free  Lance Burrton. 

Blade Chanute. 

Weekly  Sun Clay  Center. 

Pentecost  Trumpet Clay  Center. 

Farmers’  Voice Clyde. 

Free-Press Colby. 

People’s  Advocate Cold  water. 

Modern  Light Columbus. 

Alliant ;. Concordia. 

Alliance  Herald Council  Grove. 

Alliance  Sun Cuba. 

Lane  County  Farmer Dighton. 

Courier Dunlap. 

Industrial  Advocate El  Dorado. 

Standard Emporia. 

Gazette Emporia. 

Sentinel.... Erie. 

Alliance  Union Eureka. 

Times Fall  River. 

Sentinel .Frankfort. 

Rice  County  News Frederick. 

Alliance  Herald Fredonia. 

Lantern Fort  Scott. 

Times Galena. 

Times Galva. 

Tax-Payer Garden  City. 

Agitator Garnett. 

Journal Garnett. 

Western  Herald Girard. 

People’s  Sentinel Glen  Elder. 

Beacon Great  Bend. 

News Greeley. 

Alliance  Reporter Greensburg. 

Sherman  County  Farmer Qoodland. 

Republican Goodland. 

Tribune Halstead. 

Alliance  Bulletin Harper. 

Reveille Haviland. 


Independent 

Free  Press 

Signal 

Journal 

People’s  Advocate 

Independent  Tribune.... 

Citizen 

Times 

Alliance  Gazette 

Star  and  Kansan 

Farmers’  Friend 

Tribune 

Sun 

Kronicle 

Journal 

Graphic 

Alliance  Review 

Independent 

Economist 

Leader 

Register 

Jeffersonian 

Journal 

Western  Kansan 

Review 

Beacon 

Lincoln  County  Farmer. 

Leader 

Times... 

People’s  Herald 

Rice  County  Eagle 

Independent 

Nationalist 

Globe 

Republican 

Western  Advocate 

Central  Advocate 

People’s  Advocate 

People’s  Advocate 

Barber  County  Index.... 

People’s  Press 

News 

Ottawa  County  Index.... 

Torch  of  Liberty 

New  Era 

Alliance  Times 

Kansas  Patron 

Times 

Osborne' County  News... 

Labette  Statesman 

Journal 

Times 

Kansas  Alliance 

Daily  Eli 

Farmers’  Lance 


(283) 


.Haven. 

.Hays  City. 
.Herington. 
.Hiawatha. 

.Hill  City. 

.Holton. 

.Howard. 

.Huron. 

.Hutchinson. 

.Independence. 

.Iola. 

.Junction  City. 
.Kansas  City,  Ks. 
.Kincaid. 
.Kingman. 
.Kinsley. 

.Kiowa. 

.Kirwin. 

.La  Crosse. 

.Lane. 

.Lamborn. 

.Lawrence. 

.Lebanon. 

.Leoti. 

.Liberty. 

.Lincoln. 

.Lincoln. 

.Long  Island. 

.Louisville. 

.Lyndon. 

.Lyons. 

.Macksville. 

.Meade. 

.Meade. 
.Manhattan. 
.Mankato. 
.Marion. 
Marysville. 
.McPherson. 
.Medicine  Lodge. 
.Milan. 
.Miltonvale,. 
.Minneapolis. 
Mound  City. 
Norton. 

Oberlin. 

Olathe. 

Osage  City. 
Osborne. 

Oswego. 

Ottawa. 

.Paola. 

.Parsons. 

.Parsons. 

.Peru. 


284 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


KANSAS  REFORM  PRESS — Concluded. 


Kansan 

Herald 

County  Union..... 

Press 

Exponent 

Union 

Herald 

Salina. 

Scott  County  Lever 

Gazette 

News 

Telegram 

Alliance  Echo 

Smith  County  Journal 

Index.... 

New  Era 

Champion 

County  Capital 

Star 

Alliance  Signal 

Weekly  Sentinel 

Kansas  Farmer Topeka. 

Alliance  Tribune Topeka. 

Advocate Topeka. 

Farmer’s  Wife Topeka. 

Herald Towanda . 

Greeley  County  Journal Tribune. 

Headlight Turon. 

Plainsman Ulysses. 

Farmers’  Vindicator Valley  Falls. 

Republican Washington. 

People’s  Voice Wellington. 

Alliance  News Westmoreland. 

Times Westphalia. 

Commoner Wichita. 

Leader Wichita. 

Free  Press Winfield. 

Economic  Quarterly. Winfield. 

Telegram Winfield. 

Sentinel Woodsdale. 

Farmers’  Advocate Yates  Center. 


INDEX 


Alien  ownership  of  land 

Andrews,  J.  L 

Attorneys  before  Coffeyville  committee. 

Affidavit,  Thomas  Robertson 

Age-of-consent  bill  and  vote 


PAGE. 

16 

93 

98 

257 

.262-264 


Banking  law 16 

Barlow,  Lucy 131  y 150,  171 

Beard,  V.  A 137,  139,  140,  147 

Botkin’s  district,  to  abolish 12,  21 

Botkin  investigated 21 

Impeached 188,  195,  196,  199,  200,  201,  204,  205,  210,  211,  212 

Bonebrake,  P.  1 133 

Board  of  Managers v 188 

Booth,  Henry 113 

Record 259 

Brown,  J.  O.,  alias  C.  A.  Henrie 164,  165 

Brown  of  Harvey i 6 

Brown  of  Wilson 9 

Bribery,  prohibition  of. 6,  19 

Buchan,  W.  J 25,  209 


Campbell,  W.  M.......... 

Campbell,  George 

Capper,  Arthur 

Topeka  Capital 

Carey,  Ezra 

Carroll,  Senator  Ed 

Carter,  J.  W 

Chinch-bugs,  destruction  of. 

Cloud  county  resolutions 

Cobun,  M.  W 

Coffeyville  investigation...... 

Constitutional  convention... 

Cougher,  J.  G 

Cougher,  Mrs.  J.  G 

Committee  on  Judiciary 

Railroads..... 

Education 

Coulson,  Geo.  H 

Coons,  J.  B 

Credit  of  the  State 


85,  259 

95 

112,  150,  172,  173 

257 

97,  131 

93,  96,  157-159 

139,  140,  147 

16 

259 

13 

21,  92-186 

16 

120 

119,  120-130 

9,  10 

11,  12 

11 

188 

188 

23 


(285) 


286 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Care,  Sid r 

Cummings,  J.  F . 113,  131,  132, 

Curfman,  H.  U 139,  140, 

Dawes,  F.  B .*. 

Delinquent  tax  sales 

Doolittle*  J.  S 1 6,  7,  9, 

Douglass,  Geo 6,  10, 

Drunkenness  in  officials,  to  punish 

Dynamite  investigating  committee,  who 

Elder,  P.  P 8, 

Eight-hour  law 

Expenses,  Senate  and  House  compared 

Emory,  E.  B 139,  140, 

Fortney,  B.  F 

Forestry  stations -. 

Forgery  of  Senator  Kimball $j£| 

French,  Edwin 116,  131,  132, 

Greer,  Ed.  P 92, 

Portrait 

Gebhardt,  W.  A -. . 

Harkness,  Senator  F.  P 22, 

Hackney,  W.  P 188, 

Henrie,  C.  A ...92,  106,  113,  115,  117,  119,  123,  125,  126,  133,  134,  135,  153,  179,  184, 

Portrait ...... 

Henthorn,  J.  W 106, 

Henderson,  B.  S 

Howard ...7, 

“Honorary  certificate” 

House  bill  No.  1,  (Douglass) * 

2,  (Douglass).. 

17,  ( Brown  of  Harvey) 

21,  (Showalter) 

61,  (Howard) 

62,  (Howard) 

69,  ( Doolittle) . 

103,  (Vandeventer) 

120,  (Peed) 

125,  (Maddox) 

126,  (Smith  of  Smith*) : 

132,  (Elder) , 

133,  (Elder) 

134,  (Elder) 

139,  (Elder) 

145,  (Smith  of  Neosho) 

212,  (Maddox) 

225,  ( Brown  of  Wilson) 

264,  ( Howard ) . 


152 

150 

147 

98 

16 

10 

188 

121 

97 

12 

16 

23 

147 

11 

16 

93 

151 

153 

154 

147 

23 

194 

186 

181 

153 

98 

8 

180 

6 

6 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

9 

9 

9 


INDEX. 


287 


House  bill  No.  279,  (Soupene) 

339,  (Whittington) 

348,  ( Doolittle) 

436,  (Judiciary  Committee) 

479,  (Doolittle) 

540,  (Judiciary  Committee) 

577,  ( Douglass) 

604,  ( Stephens) 

606,  (Doolittle) 

692,  (Stewart) 

693,  (Neeley) 

696,  ( Fortney) 

698,  (Rogers  of  Marion) 

707,  ( Railroad  Committee) 

712,  (Committee  on  Education). 

718,  (Scott) 

743,  (Committee  on  Railroads).. 

833,  (Elder) 

842,  (Elder) 


Hutchins,  Bion  S 92, 

Hudson,  J.  K 

Humphrey,  L.  U.,  (Governor) 18,  184, 

Hutchinson  forged  resolutions : 

Huntington  letters 


Interest  drain 

Ives,  J.  N 

Judiciary  Committee 9, 

Jones,  Lee 

Kelley,  Senator  M.  C 

Kelly,  Senator  H.  B 

Kimball,  Senator  C.  H.,  22,  93,  94,  104,  105,  107,  110,  113,  119,  130,  131,  134,  135,  148,  156, 

Larned  Weekly  Optic ! 

Lotteries,  to  prevent... 

Lockard,  Senator  J.  B 

Martin,  John  A.  (Gov.) 

Mackey,  A.  M 

Maddox 7, 

Metsker,  D.  C '. 

Mohler,  Senator  J.  G 97,  159, 

Mitchell,  W.  H 

McCray,  D.  O Ill,  150,  173, 

Mortgage  indebtedness  — 

Marshall  county 

Miami  county 

Lyon  county 

Sedgwick  county 

Harper  county 


9 

9 

9 

9 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

12 

12 

12 

12 

153 

133 

185 

257 

277 

268 

188 

10 

147 

23 

263 

208 

260 

20 

92 

133 

188 

9 

133 

160 

188 

176 

265 

265 

266 

267 

267 


288 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK . 


Mortgage  indebtedness  — 

Marion  county . 267 

Pratt  county 267 

Moody,  Senator  Joel 11,  23 

Murdock,  Senator  T.  B 23,  94 

Mortgages  paid,  how r 268 

Neeley *....* 11 

Official  State  Directory 268 

Parks,  David . 146 

Parties  in  1890 5 

Petitions  for  impeachment  of  Judge  Botkin 196 

People’s  manifesto 14,  24 

Pinkerton  thugs . 19 

Populist  platform 5 

Pooling  among  live-stock  buyers . 16 

Poorman,  Geo.  W 163,  164 

Populist  newspapers 283 


Railroad  bill,  No.  707 11 

Railroad  bill,  No.  743 .* ; ....11 , 31-46 

Sec.  1.  Shall  not  charge  higher 31 

Classification 31 

Sec.  2.  Compensation  limited.. 32 

Sec.  3.  Commissioners,  when  elected,  how  elected,  give  bonds 32 

Sec.  4.  Office  and  salaries 33 

Sec.  5.  Districts 33 

Sec.  6.  Railroad  companies  must  adjust  rates 33 

Sec.  7.  Commissioners  shall  hear  complaints 33 

Attorney  General  appear  for  theJState 34 

Sec.  8.  Continuous  session 34 

Sec.  9.  Penalty  for  refusal  to  comply  with  provisions  of  this  act 34 

Sec.  10.  Mandamus  to  compel  obedience 35 

Sec.  11.  Yearly  re-classification 35 

Short  and  long  hauls 36 

Sec.  12.  Commissioners  shall  investigate 36 

Sec.  13.  Companies  shall  answer  under  oath 36 

Refusal  a contempt 37 

Sec.  14.  Witnesses  must  appear 37 

Sec.  15.  Schedule  and  classification .’ 37-41 

Sec.  16.  Articles  not  enumerated 42 

Sec.  17.  Roads  in  class  B 42 

Sec.  18.  Obedience  shall  be  compelled 43 

Sec.  19.  Commissioners  shall  publish  maximum  rates 43 

Sec.  20.  Railroad  companies  shall  furnish  station  facilities. 44 

Sec.  21.  Appropriation  to  cover  expenses  of 44 

Sec.  22.  Commissioners  shall  report  to  the  Legislature;  what  the  report  shall  show 44-46 

Sec.  23.  Test  cases  shall  be  preferred 46 

Sec.  24.  Switching  charges 46 

Sec.  25.  Clerk  and  stenographer,  seal 46 


INDEX . 


289 


Railroad  Committee 11,  12 

Railroad  tables  — see  “Tables.” 

Rates  — 

House  bill  No.  743 82 

By  counties— VII,  VIII,  and  IX,  compared 83,  84,  85 

Commissioners’,  reviewed 82 

Reasonable .. 48 

Joint 21 

Reed,  H.  M 7 

Reed,  Judge 117,  159 

Republican  platform 6 

Republican  losses 190,  191 

Reduction  of  salaries ; 20 

Redemption  law 10,  18 

Redemption  (tax  sales) 19 

Reduction  of  State  expenses 15,  21,  22 

Rude,  Dr , 1 140,  153 

Rodgers  of  Washington  to  Buchan 25,  30 

Comparisons  of  appropriations 26 

Stacey  or  Buchan 27 

List  of  deficiencies 28 

Appropriation  bills 28 

Appropriation  bills  (building) 29 

Buchan’s  misstatements 30 

One  million  dollars  saved 30 

World’s  Fair  bill >. 30 

Broken  promises :... 30 

Rogers  of  Marion 11 

Scott,  Frank  C 112,  150,  172,  173 

Scott *. 12 

Senator,  United  States 15 

Silver  bill 12,  18 

School  books,  uniform  series 21 

Senn,  M 97,  107,  153 

Severance,  Hon.  John 258 

Senate  Revision  Committee 22 

Showalter 7 

Smith,  G.  E.  (of  Smith) 8 

Smith  (of  Neosho) 8 

Soupene _. 9 

Soldiers’  statement 258 

Stewart 11 

Stephens 10 

State  Printer..... 14,  90 

State  Board  of  Pardons,  to  abolish 20 

Sub-treasury  Plan * 269-275 

Constitutionality 275 

Tables— 

I.  Mileage,  Railroad  Commissioners’  Report  for  Kansas,  1890 49 

I-A.  Mileage,  Iowa  Report,  1889 50 


290 


POPULIST  HAND-BOOK. 


Tables— 

II.  Freight  earnings,  Kansas  Report,  1890 51 

II-A.  Freight  earnings,  Iowa  Report,  1889 52 

III.  Freight  earnings,  per  ton  mile  and  train  mile,  Kansas  Report,  1890 53 

III- A.  Same  for  Iowa,  Report  1889 54 

IV.  Showing  number  of  employes,  wages  paid,  cost  of  maintenance  of  road-bed,  main- 

tenance of  equipment,  and  cost  of  operating,  Kansas  Report,  1890 to  face  54 

IV- A.  Same  for  Iowa,  Report  1889 to  face  54 

V.  Gross  earnings,  Kansas  Report,  1890 55 

V-A.  Gross  earnings,  Iowa  Report,  1889 56 

VI.  Operating  expenses,  Kansas  Report,  1890 57 

VI-A.  Operating  expenses,  Iowa  Report,  1889 57 

Comparative  review  of  tables 58,  59,  60 

Recapitulation  of  IV  to  VI-A 61 

VII.  Railroad  Commissioners,  reasonable  tariff  rates.... 62-67 

VIII.  Railroad  tariff  rates  now  in  force 68-73 

IX.  Railroad  tariff  rates  prescribed  by  House  bill  No.  743 74-79 

Comparative  summary  of  VII,  VIII,  and  IX 80,  81 

Rates  per  ton  mile,  all  classes  of  freight,  from  VII,  VIII,  and  IX 80,  81 

Alphabetical  comparison  by  counties 83,  84,  85 

Comprehensive  tables  covering  sixteen  years’  earnings 86 

Freight  rates,  Iowa,  Illinois,  and  Kansas,  compared 87 

Typographical  error  in  Senate  Journal 159 

Transportation 46 

United  States  Senator 15 

Usury  law .....; 8,  17 

Upham,  H.  M 92,  99,  117,  145,  146,  150 

Union  Pacific  Railroad  Report  275 

Central  Pacific  Railroad 276 

Stock  table 277 

Vandeventer,  C.  C 7,  97 

V erdicts  of  j uries 20 

Vincent,  C 92,  95,  99,  105,  130,  132 

Vincent,  H 103,  150,  165 

Vincent,  L 103 

Voting  bonds,  prohibition  of. * 20 

Waldrop,  I.  M 118,  119,  149 

Warehouses,  inspection,  etc 16 

Webb,  II.  G 98,  156,  160,  179 

Webb,  LelandJ 152,  153 

Webb,  W.  C 188,  194,  195 

Whittington,  A.  N 9,  188 

Weekly  wages,  payment  of..... 20 

Whitted,  C.  S 133 

Whitley,  J.  W 133,  152 

Winton,  Joe  P 152 

World’s  Fair  bill 13,  19 

Women,  right  to  vote 9,  20 

Wood’s  manifesto 24 

Wood,  Dr.  J.  A 146 


